Contingency and Units in Interaction

Bibliographic Data

ID5777558
AuthorsCecilia E Ford (University of Wisconsin–Madison, corresponding author)
Year2004
Volume6
Issue1
Pages27-52
Publication date2004-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueDiscourse Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1461-4456 • E-ISSN: 1461-7080
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1461445604039438
OpenAlexW2044347089
LanguageEN
Citations received43
References cited51

Starting with Houtkoop and Mazeland's (1985) study of discourse units, and touching upon recent studies aimed at detailing unit projection in interaction, this article argues that the drive toward abstract and discrete models for units and unit projection is potentially misleading. While it has been established that to engage in talk-in-interaction, as it unfolds in real time, participants rely on projectable units (Sacks et al., 1974, 1978), research aimed at defining units unintentionally backgrounds the contingency inherent in interaction. A central function of language for collaborative action is the management of simultaneously unfolding facets of action, sound production, gesture, and grammar - produced by multiple participants. This article draws upon classic and current data analyses foregrounding linguistic/interactional practices designed to manage local contingencies. It is argued that attention to participants' regular methods for managing and exploiting contingencies be incorporated from the outset in our descriptions of language and the nature of unit building in interaction

Contingency · Conversation analysis · Foregrounding · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Speech and dialogue systems