Topic Transition to Wrap-up Talk

Closing is interactional local achievement and in order to understand the dynamics of closings it is necessary to uncover the organisation of talk in adjacency pairs (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973). The following extract will present the fivesequentially organised moves to bring the meeting to an end through archetype closing that organises the termination of conversation over a section of talk rather than in the course of one turn which displays an orientation to legitimising conversation’s termination (Button, 1987: 102).

In this extract, the chairperson S2, brings the co-participants to the closing phase of the meeting after they have covered all the relevant points in relation to the meeting agenda.

Extract 5.06: right any other business

[2:13:07- 2:13:30]

1. S2 right↓ (0.1) any other busi↑ness↓

116 ((S1, S4 and S3 gaze at S2))

2. (1.7)

((S2 turns right to look at S1 and S4))

((When S2 slowly turns left to look at S3, S1 and S4 shake their heads displaying a 'no' answer)) 3. S2 no↓ (0.3) good.(0.1)(.hhh) er:: (0.3) time and date of

4. next meeting↓ (.) ten aye em next week↓ (0.7)

((S1, S3 and S4 gazes at S2)) 5. con[ference] client↑ 6. S1 [yes ] 7. (0.1) 8. S4 < c::lient↓> 9. (0.2)

10. S2 client room (0.3) (.hhh) (hhh.) (0.2) done↑

117 ((S2 looks at S4 ))

11. (0.1) 12. S4 [ye]ah↑ 13. S2 [ev]

14. S2 everything↑ (0.1) good to go↑ 15. (0.8)

((S2 starts collecting his papers)) 16. S3 good to [go:↑ ] 17. S1 [yeah ] 18. S4 [°yeah°] 19. (0.2)

20. S2 (.hhh) end of -°end of meeting↓°

Firstly, the topic initial elicitor appears in line 1 as topic-bounding turn (Button and Casey, 1984, 1985). S2 designs his turn as a possible pre-closing by formulating a topic bounding (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973: 306; Button and Casey, 1984) by producing the sequence closing device right↓ with falling intonation and a pause of 0.1 seconds that serves to do a possible pre-closing. Transition markers such as ‘right’ are possible closings when placed after a point, which the co-participants can interpret at the end of a topic (Button, 1987; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973: 305, Nielsen, 2013). Then, S2 continues formulating his turn with last call for new mentionables (Nielsen, 2013) and makes it explicitly possible for further meeting talk which shows the co-participants that they are heading toward the closing of the meeting, any other busi↑ness↓.

Inviting the co-participants to bring in new mentionables and marking such an invitation as a last chance to do so is an important technique by the chair to close the meeting (Nielsen, 2013). Employing topic initial elicitors as the topic-bounding turn in the closing sequence propose that any topic produced as a result of their enquiry is downgraded in newsworthiness, are sensitive to, and apt for a sequential environment in which the introduction of a new topic may be a delicate matter (Button and Casey, 1985: 45).

118

Interestingly, the lexical material any other busi↑ness↓ is present in all of the pre-closing of the meetings. This choice of lexical material refers to new topics as any other marking it as less central than the previous topic i.e., as an additional lesser topics. This way of

formulating a TCU may in itself discourage the bringing up of something at this stage. According to Nielsen (2013: 54) central issues that are placed in exactly these sequential surroundings will need to be strongly marked as essential if they are not to be treated as peripheral. The lexical material is similar to the lexical material found in pre-closing sequences in American meetings ‘‘anybody e:lse? got anything else?, Do we have any (.) other business? any new business?’’ (Boden, 1994: 104, 105).

In comparison to the doctor-patient consultation closings, the particular wording or

formulation of the TCU makes a difference. Using ‘some’ rather than ‘any’ when inviting the patient to talk about their concerns may allow more concerns to be identified (Heritage, Robinson, Elliott, Beckett, & Wilkes, 2007). Asking the patient ‘Do you have some other concerns that you’d like to address today?’ or ‘Is there something else you want to address in the visit today?’ has been shown by Heritage et al (2007) to be more likely to lead to the patient mentioning further concerns; whereas asking ‘Do you have any other concerns’ or ‘Is there anything else you want to address in the visit today?’ is a question design that favours a ‘no’ response.

S2’s turn is supported by embodied actions as he taps his hand once on the table while producing the sequence closing device to mark topic bounding and then gazes down at the meeting agenda making sure that they have covered all the points for the meeting. Once S2 taps his hand the other co-participants turns to gaze at S2.

Secondly, during the 1.7 seconds gap in line 2, S2 turns to look at S1 and S4 then slowly turns to look at S3 who shakes her head. When S2 slowly turns to look at S3, both S1 and S4 shake their head displaying a ‘no’ answer. This set of embodied actions and monitoring each other’s nonverbal actions create an interactional space (Mondada, 2013). This physical interactional space is used as an interactional resource to take a turn or withdraw from a topic. The co- participants pass these opportunity spaces for moving out of closings (Button, 1987: 128), thereby showing readiness to close the meeting.

119

Thirdly, in lines 3-5, after the co-participants display through embodied actions that they have nothing further to contribute on last mentionable, S2 terminates the invitation to any other business with closing device + pause + an assessment to do another topic bounding and possible pre-closing no↓ (0.3) good. These instances of topic bounding are classified as sequence-closing-sequence works to close down a topic and they occur as a preliminary to closing (Liddicoat, 2007). After that, S2 moves on to produce arrangements to confirm details for the next meeting (Schegloff and Sacks, 1973; Button, 1987; Liddicoat, 2007).

Arrangements are commonly found as the last topic in conversation and after an arrangement a conversation may proceed quickly to closing (Liddicoat, 2007; Button, 1991b; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973) (.hhh) er:: (0.3) time and date of next meeting↓ (.) ten aye em next week↓ (0.7) con[ference] client↑. Arrangements in this sequential placement involves two interactional features or actions. Firstly, arrangements orient to conversation-in- a-series (Button, 1985) and they provide an orderly link between the current encounter and future encounter (Button, 1985). Secondly, since arrangements provide for future encounter, they allow for closing of the current encounter by proposing that other possible topics for talk could be reserved until the next conversation (Button, 1987; Liddicoat, 2007: 262). These two interactional features or actions allow arrangements to be oriented to a closing implicative and for the chairperson S2 to initiate closing talk as a next action on the completion of an

arrangement.

In lines 6 and 8, S1 and S4 produces minimal response tokens as an agreement to close the meeting. Moreover, the co-participants show their orientation to this closure by passing opportunities to speak (Nielsen, 2013) during the gaps in lines 7 and 9.

Fourthly, S2 confirms the name of the meeting room for the next meeting client room (0.3) then he does the first check that the meeting is done (.hhh) (hhh.) (0.2) done↑ after a gap of 0.1 seconds with no response to his check to close the meeting. S2’s turn

overlaps with S4 confirming the closing with minimal response token [ye]ah↑ in line 12 and S2 is about to do a second check that the meeting is done in which he continues to produce in line 14 everything↑ (0.1) good to go↑. After that, all of the co-participants starts taking turns and overlap to agree that the meeting is done in lines 16, 17 and 18 good to [go:↑], [yeah] ,[°yeah°].

120

Finally, in line 20, S2 self-selects with an audible in-breath and makes an explicit ending statement or an announcement of closure (Button, 1991b; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973) (.hhh) end of -°end of meeting↓°.

The following section presents how the participants move the interaction to post-meeting talk which can either be institutional by referring back to previous meeting topic or social talk about drinks or going out for dinner.