Patterns around topic shift

The basic concern in this section is to come to an understanding of how topics move. For example, does the topic actually change or does the new topic simply emerge from the previous one? Put in CA terms: Is there a ‘stepwise’ transition of topics, what Sacks (1992) calls ‘the way a topic … is used to make a jump’ (vol. 2, p. 300) or is it a situation as Button and Casey (1984) report of using topic elicitors to close one topic and open another? In fact, it may turn out that topics usually do not shift abruptly or dramatically.

Possibly the usual case is that there are traceable ties between previous and new topics. This implies that when an exception to the rule occurs (i.e., topic shift without any connection between topics), it is rare and held accountable. So part of the complexity and thus the challenge of discussing change of topic is due to the almost seamless transition which could occur for a multitude of topics during a single conversation. Sacks (1992) notes that participants may find themselves faraway from where they began in terms of what they were talking about (February 19, 1971 lecture). While understanding the organization of topic has been considered a complex undertaking (Heritage & Atkinson, 1984, Heritage, 1989), in this chapter, I look at how topic shift is used as a resource.

‘Juncture’, a term used by Button (1991) and Button and Casey (1984) refers to particular moments in the sequence of turns where participants are able to direct the future course of topic organization. Their particular interest is how a topic gets closed. I have adapted their idea of ‘juncture’ to my own purpose of looking at how topic shift can help keep the talk going. Juncture locates within the turns where options become apparent. This implies

there could be critical moments when actions are taken or not taken (with consequences either way).

6.2.1 After overlap

This subsection and the following two look at the location of topic shift in connection with overlap and silence. What participants do after an overlap promises to be an informative site to see interaction at work. Overlap presents an orientation challenge because talk at this specific moment is not moving in an orderly ‘one person speaks at a time’ fashion. When laughter is involved in the overlap, this could present a complication. Who will speak after the laughter? We are reminded of Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) that talk is generally continuous with few gaps. This observation could imply that discontinuous talk with gaps, a characteristic of stuckness, is avoided if at all possible.

A topic shift after an overlap could be seen as a move to get unstuck from the overlap and regain the flow through nominating a promising new topic. So this could be a strategic move to clarify how to proceed. In the example below, the talk has been flowing about soccer, but in line 44, Takao does not continue to elaborate. Instead there is an overlap of laughter. (The opening part of this conversation appeared in Chapter 5, Excerpt 5 for ritualistic silence. Here, I am examining a longer stretch to see how they get out of one of the overlaps.)

Excerpt 1: Takao no. 10 part 1, looking ahead

32 T: Yeah. I still play soccer 33 I: Oh.

34 T: once a week 35 I: Umhuh.

36 T: twice a week yeah. 37 I: Umhuh

38 T: So tomorrow I have a (.) soccer match 39 I: Oh oh.

40 T: Yeah with my friends 41 I: Um um um.

42 T: Yeah.

43 I: Important match?

→44 T: Yeah. [Hhh

→45 I: [Hhh] Um and tell me a little bit what you’re going to do from April↑? 46 T: Um.

47 I: You you have a a new future. 48 T: hhh

49 I: Yeah. So tell me a little bit about your job.

50 T: Yes. Ah. I’m going to work as a systems engineer 51 I: Um.

52 T: for San Santo Japan and ah (1.5) uh I’m I will worked in Kawasaki city 53 I: Oh.

54 T: just near Tokyo. Just 20 minutes::s south from Tokyo by train.

In line 45 after the overlap of laughter and two makers (‘um’, ‘and’) to take the floor, Ian introduces a clear change of topic. This action serves to make it clear whose turn is next (Takao’s) and how subsequent turns are organized. Since the nominated topic is about Takao’s new job, he is expected to elaborate (something he did not do in line 44 for the previous topic on the soccer match). Thus, the change of topic seems to provide a prompt to get the talk flowing again. We see how Ian uses lines 47 and 49 to set up Takao to elaborate from line 50. While the culmination of the series of questions by Ian leads to

the elaboration of Takao’s job, a closer look at lines 45-48, raises the possibility that stuckness might have a trajectory extending over a series of turns. First, the response in line 46 is not really a response to the question. Ian reformulates the question line 47 in pursuit of a response. Takao’s reply in line 48 still does not directly address the question or request. Ian tries a third time with another reformulation, this time in clear question form. Takao in line 49 addresses line 47 and then lines 45 and 49. Here we see getting unstuck being pursued by trying to get the second part of an adjacency pair.

The overlapping laughter (back in lines 44-45) could be ambiguous in terms of the next turn. This moment of uncertainty seems to be stuckness. Evidence is the delay in projecting the direction of the talk (the beginning of line 45). Will the talk continue on soccer? We see that in fact this topic has been closed and a new one is about to begin. The overlap itself is not as much a problem as how to get out of it.

The juncture in the example above is brought about by the overlap. A decision needs to be made on how to carry on. The overlap and the laughter do not inherently present

problems. They only become problems when participants are uncertain of what to do next. While overlapping laughter could create a sense of affiliation (i.e., ‘I know what you mean’), this one seems to display some uncertainty over how to coordinate the projection of the next turn.

The stuckness here appears to be a matter of what to do after the laughter dies down. The conversational challenge is how to continue talking after reaching agreement that the match is important to Takao. Stuckness is seen in the delay (after ‘yeah’ in line 44) in

establishing the relevant topic by either closing the current topic or nominating a new one. So, one aspect of getting unstuck seems to depend on co-orienting to the topic of the next turn. Sometimes, something as simple and seemingly insignificant as a non-lexical token (e.g., ‘um’) could be a sign of hesitation. Participants might not be sure how the following turn(s) will be taken.

6.2.2 After silence

Below, the topic seems to shift somewhat drastically after the silence (in line 47). The question here is whether this is a clear change of topics or something else is going on.