When a change of topic does not work to get unstuck

Problematic cases could arise when the initiation of getting unstuck or the first part of an adjacency pair does not have a clear second part. When confirmation is not found after the initiation, participants could continue to be stuck. At least a two-turn attempt is needed to get unstuck. In order to investigate how a first slot initiative needs a suitable second slot response, I identify the first part of the unstuck pair and follow what happens next. When the attempt to get unstuck fails, the problem could be a lack of clear

confirmation in the second part of the pair. Participants should orient to the same topic. An indication by one participant of trying to get unstuck is not adequate on its own to show getting unstuck since these talks are treated as being co-constructed. A signal from the other participant is necessary to let the initiator know that they can move forward on the topic introduced in the first turn.

In the following sequence with Masako, there are signs (e.g., multiple gaps and pauses) of this talk being in trouble in lines 20-22. Can the shift of topic (lines 23-24) clear up the awkward moments? (A much later sequence in this encounter was seen in Chapter 3,

Excerpt 3 for NS language modification. Here attention is on whether the topic shift helps.)

Excerpt 5: Masako no. 1, junior high school

20 I: Ah. And (.) from the station (.) how do you (.) go by school? 21 (2)

22 M: Um? (.) I go to school (2) by bicycle.

→23 I: Oh. Ah. (.) Ah um. (.) Let’s see. (3) Do you remember um when you 24 started (.) taking my English conversation class?

25 (2)

26 I: You were in elementary school, right? 27 (2)

28 I: Was that (.) were you third year fourth year student? Do you remember? 29 (2)

30 M: Yes.

31 I: Ah. Third? Fourth? 32 M: Fourth=

33 I: = Fourth. Ah. 34 (3)

35 I: Okay. So. And then ah you took ah vacation, right? …

((Fifth and sixth grades were spent studying intensively for the junior high school entrance exam.))

At first glance, we see (in line 23) the markers (‘oh’, ‘ah’, ‘um’) and pauses signaling that a new topic will begin. At another glance, these signals reveal that the shift is not an easy one. The markers and micro pauses along with ‘Let’s see’ and a long pause before the actual question which changes the topic suggest the speaker is searching for a topic (which will not result in silence). Recall of a past event is an abrupt choice of topic with

no preface or tie with the previous one. In addition, the proposed topic comes in the form of a rather lengthy yes/no type question. When that does not work in getting a verbal response let alone an elaboration, Ian reformulates the question in line 26 (e.g., shortens the length and adds a tag) and designs it to be simpler to answer. The ‘new’ topic never really gets off the ground as the gaps continue to appear where extensive talk should be.

The turn after each question is silence before and after the topic shift (lines 21, 25, 27, and 29). This example illustrates that sometimes change of topic alone is not enough to ensure getting unstuck. In fact, the change of topic could actually deepen the stuckness when participants have not taken the time to sufficiently co-orient to the upcoming change. The focus here is on whether the topic shift started in line 23 works to get participants unstuck. Based on the gaps in lines 25 and 27, apparently the shift to recalling when she started Ian’s class did not help.

Another view of how the change of topic does not always work is to see line 23 as a juncture where a decision needs to be made about the topic. Will the current topic on mode of transportation to school continue? We see that Ian changes the topic after much hesitation is displayed by the series of tokens and pauses. Such a string of actions could show that the participants are stuck (i.e., not sure how to proceed). Something must have happened before participants reached the juncture. Looking at the prior turns (lines 20-22),

we find his ungrammatical question in line 20, the gap, Masako’s token of puzzlement (‘um’?), and the possible repair of Ian’s original question. All these signs could have contributed to the decision to nominate a new topic: Asking her to recall when she took Ian’s class.

The point is that the new topic does not appear to help them get unstuck as subsequent questions continue to go unanswered. What this example suggests is that a change of topic does not always work as a way out of stuckness. At the juncture, the decision of how to proceed in the next turn should be taken carefully with considerable attention paid to advantages as well as disadvantages of changing the topic. What goes on before the juncture could give us an idea of the state of co-orientation the participants are in.

I note here just briefly that some of the awkwardness displayed by both participants is

partially due to unfamiliarity with how to act within the specific discourse practice. This talk session was the first one, so it was just beginning to be established. We see a similar situation in Kasper (2004a,b) in the oral proficiency interview test (which is a one off encounter) where the interviewer often repeats or reformulates his or her questions to the test candidate in order to find topics to talk about. So unfamiliarity of the type of talk seems to be manifested here as not being able to find a suitable change of topic to get the other person involved. The student-participant may need time to realize that the priority in these kinds of encounters is on elaborating one’s answers into an extended personal report not simply to answer each question one by one.