→43 I: Oh. So is Tottori University um famous for agriculture? 44 S: Oh yes. Um especially for dessert
45 I: Oh. 46 S: desert?
→47 I: Desert. But you prefer Okayama?
48 S: HHhh. Do I tell you why I choose Okayama University?
49 I: If you don’t mind. I never asked but it sounds like an interesting story.
50 S: Ah first I wanted to go to Tottori University than Okayama University because 51 they have examination for people working for five years or more but the date …
Here are three possible readings: (1) The questions (lines 43 and 47) appear closely related in broad content (i.e., choosing between Tottori and Okayama universities). Grammatically speaking, it could be argued that there is a link between the two questions through ‘but’. (Tottori University is famous for agriculture, but you prefer Okayama?) One school is famous for her field of interest, but she chose the other one. (2) There is a problem with this sequence from as early as line 44, not only for the mispronunciation, but also in terms of irrelevance. What is the connection between the famous sand dune in Tottori (the ‘desert’) and agriculture? Some action is needed. Ian gives a receipt. ‘Oh’ here could be questioning the juxtaposition of words (‘agriculture’ and ‘desert’ which is actually a sand dune). (3) The first word after the end of the repair sequence in line 47 is
‘But’. Possibly this word marks a fresh sequence of turns (away from problems with the language) by focusing on establishing the topic.
6.4.3 Topic and turn-taking as different perspectives
Briefly I would like to mention an analytical issue. What could make such an exploration of sequences of talk so complex is that topic and turn-taking appear to be two different views: one by the analyst and the other by the participants. Participants are probably not thinking about the details of turn-taking organization in technical terms like timing, overlaps, pauses, and sequences. These terms are the tools of the analyst. When participants notice details of talk, they most likely treat them as practical physical
displays to help them navigate through the messiness of trying to connect with each other turn by turn. What participants seem to have is an informal notion of ‘topic’ and ‘floor’. For example, they try to figure out if they can say anything more about the current topic.
6.5 Summary
In this chapter, I have introduced some of the possible resources in the form of devices, a certain perspective for positioning them, and patterns that could display how participants work to get unstuck through turn-by-turn co-orientation. Juncture, the main perspective used to analyze topic organization, was explored in an attempt to locate within the turns where participants need to decide which option to take. Getting unstuck is about taking actions which are coordinated, confirmed, and further acted upon. These perspectives seem promising in deepening awareness and understanding of the local context of these
particular talks and how the participants co-manage talk-in-interaction. Junctures are interactional opportunities for participants to make topical co-adjustments.
In an effort to further unpack some of the ways participants manage to get unstuck or back on track both in terms of turn-taking and agreement of topic, I discussed a few potential ways of getting unstuck which I noticed as being available to participants:
(1) Topic shift after silence. (2) Topic shift after overlap.
(3) A shift within a topic after an overlap and silence.
After that I raised methodological issues about the difficulties faced by the analyst in knowing where topics actually shift and whether both participants orient to it in the same way. Here the notion of ‘juncture’ with topic organization is helpful to further examine how participants get unstuck. By identifying a site of decision making for topic (e.g., a shift), we are able to see available options as well as trace previous turns and link them with subsequent ones. Then we looked at one problematic case encountered when change of topic was used as a way of getting unstuck. This is a case where the change of topic fails to lead to becoming unstuck. In fact, a change of topic such as in Masako, no. 1, lines 23-27, seems to reinforce that participants are still stuck and possibly more so since the attempts failed.
Finally, other ideas (which could help heighten awareness and deepen understanding of how participants co-manage to get unstuck) were grounded in constraints of this
particular genre of talk. For example, two constraints seem important. The time factor appears to influence the organization of topic in terms of type of topic and the projected length participants could talk about them. Also, two people talking over a period of time brings up considerations for topic and getting unstuck which are unique for dyads. While the choices (for who will get or take the floor) appear much simpler than in situations where three or more participants interact, there are greater pressures and expectations placed on two participants to ‘carry their weight’ and ‘not to drop the ball’.
Getting unstuck through turn-taking is a shared accomplishment. Evidence is in how participants are able to handle topic in the next turn: whether it turns out to be the
initiation of a new topic or an exploration of another aspect of the current one. Juncture as a kind of ‘fork in the road’ is available to participants not only to start a new topic, but also to close down or continue a topic. The notion of ‘juncture’, when applied to this study, could describe the place and the moment of decision near the end of a delay or mistimed turns and the potential initiation of actions to get unstuck. Who will take the next action to initiate the effort to get unstuck (through topic shift)? Will it be noticed and responded to accordingly? The successful co-orientation and co-projection of how to use their turns will hopefully lead (though it could take several turns, not just two) to re- establishing both turn-taking and topic. As Button (1991) sees it, “the production of on topic talk is a vehicle through which they may stay in conversation with each other” (p. 264).