Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:18:33.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the adjacency pair*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Amy B. M. Tsui
Amy B. M. Tsui
Affiliation:
English Language Teaching Unit, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the descriptive power of the adjacency pair as a basic unit of conversational organization. It applies the notion to the analysis of conversational data and points out that there are utterances which are important contributions to the conversation and yet for which the notion fails to account. They are utterances which are not the component parts of an adjacency pair and yet form a bounded unit with it. This raises the question of which is more adequate as a basic unit of conversational organization: a three-part exchange or an adjacency pair? This article proposes that it is the former, based on the observation that the third part of an exchange is a very important element of conversational interaction, and that when it does not occur, it is often withheld for social or strategic reasons. The article argues for the nontrivial absence of the third part by showing its relevance of occurrence (Sacks 1972:342). An investigation is made of its functions by examining where, when, and why it does not occur, and where, when, and why it does occur in conversation. The discussion is exemplified by face-to-face and telephone conversation data. (Sociolinguistics, ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, pragmatics)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 1989 , pp. 545 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1984). Structures of social action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multilayered approach to exchange structure. In Coulthard, M. & Montgomery, M. (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 120–45.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (1982). Review of M. A. K. Halliday (1978). Language as social semiotic. Nottingham Linguistic Circular 11 (1):64–94.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (1987). Is teacher an unanalysed concept? In Halliday, M. A. K. & Fawcett, R. P. (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics. London: Frances Pinter. 41–63.Google Scholar
Brazil, D., Coulthard, M., & Johns, C. (1980). Discourse intonation and language teaching. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Burton, D. (1981). Analysing spoken discourse. In Coulthard, M. & Montgomery, M. (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 61–81.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. ([1977] 1986). An introduction to discourse analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. (1981). Developing the description. In Coulthard, M. & Montgomery, M. (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 13–31.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., & Ashby, M. (1976). A linguistic description of doctor-patient interviews. In Wadsworth, M. & Robinson, D. (eds.), Studies in everyday medical life. London: Robertson.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., & Brazil, D. (1981). Exchange structure. In Coulthard, M. & Montgomery, M. (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 82–106.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., & Montgomery, M. (eds.). (1981). Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Montgomery, M., & Brazil, D. (1981). Developing description of spoken discourse. In Coulthard, M. & Montgomery, M. (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1–50.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) (1984). 102–28.Google Scholar
Franck, D. (1981). Seven sins of pragmatics. In Parrel, H., Sbisa, M., & Verschueren, J. (eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics at Urbino, 07 8–14, 7979. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 225–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and responses. Language in Society 5:257–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). English system networks. In Kress, G. (ed.), Halliday: System and function in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 101–35.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) (1984). 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Introduction. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.) (1984). 1–15.Google Scholar
Hewings, M. (1987). Intonation and feedback in the EFL classroom. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Discussing discourse (ELR Mongraph Series). Birmingham: University of Birmingham. 221–35.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Rules for ritual insults. In D. Sudnow (ed.) (1972). 120–69.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, M. (1976). On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society 5:315–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mishler, E. G. (1975). Studies in dialogue and discourse: An exponential law of successive questioning. Language in Society 4:31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, M. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 325–45.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50 (4):696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1972). Notes on conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (ed.) (1972). 75–119.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1979). Repair after next turn. Paper presented at the Social Science Research Council/British Sociological Association Conference on Practical Reasoning and Discourse Processes, St. Hugh's College, Oxford.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 7 (4):289–327.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1972). Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Stenström, A. (1984). Questions and answers in English conversation (Lund Studies in English). Malmö: Liber Forlög.Google Scholar
Terasaki, A. (1976). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation (Social Science Working Paper 99). University of California, Irvine, School of Social Science.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. (1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC Journal 16 (1):8–32.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. (1987a). An analysis of different types of interaction in ESL classroom discourse. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 25(4):336–53.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M. (1987b). Aspects of the classification of illocutionary acts and the notion of a perlocutionary act. Semiotica 66(4):359–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ventola, E. (1987). The structure of social action: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. (1986). Research methodology and the question of validity. TESOL Quarterly 20 (4):689–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar