Figurative Pivots Holt & Drew

This article was downloaded by: [Loughborough University], [Paul Drew]On: 26 September 2014, At: 22:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Research on Language andSocial InteractionPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrls20

Figurative Pivots: The Useof Figurative Expressions inPivotal Topic TransitionsElizabeth Holt & Paul DrewPublished online: 14 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Elizabeth Holt & Paul Drew (2005) Figurative Pivots: The Use ofFigurative Expressions in Pivotal Topic Transitions, Research on Language and SocialInteraction, 38:1, 35-61, DOI: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hrls20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2

http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3801_2

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Figurative Pivots: The Use of FigurativeExpressions in Pivotal Topic Transitions

Elizabeth HoltDepartment of English

University of Huddersfield

Paul DrewDepartment of Sociology

University of York

In this article, we use conversation analysis in an investigation of figurative expres-sions in conversation. We begin with the observation that figurative expressions areoften followed by disjunctive transitions to a new topic (cf. Drew & Holt, 1988, 1995,1998). In some instances, however, the figurative expression is used as a pivot to anew matter: The figurative expression forms a bridge connecting to the previous talkbut opening up the possibility of moving away from that matter to a different one. Inthis article, we focus on these pivotal transitions, showing how aspects of the designof figurative expressions (such as the fact that they recurrently act as summaries andassessments of the previous detailing) make them appropriate devices for movingaway from the matter at hand while at the same time enabling other matters to be in-troduced. Analysis of instances of these stepwise (rather than disjunctive) topic tran-sitions raises issues concerning common difficulties in identifying topic transitionsin interaction and the mechanisms by which stepwise transitions are managed.

There occur in conversation phrases that are, to varying degrees, for-mulaic and fixed in composition (syntactically, lexically, and occasionally

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(1), 35–61Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

We thank the reviewers and Don Zimmerman for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of thisarticle.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Elizabeth Holt, School of Music and Hu-manities, University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, United Kingdom. E-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

prosodically). Commonly they are metaphorical, and their meanings can-not be derived from their individual words: They are learned separately assingle units (cf. Fillmore, Kay, & O’Connor, 1988). Previous research intothe sequential position of these figurative expressions in conversation hasrevealed that they are recurrently associated with marked topic changes to aradically distinct new matter (Drew & Holt, 1988, 1995, 1998). The follow-ing is a case in point (cf. Drew & Holt, 1998).

(1) [Holt:X(C)85:1:1:1:6]

(Lesley is telling her mother about an acquaintance that has recently died.)

1 Lesley: … He wz a (0.2) .p a buyer for the hoh- i- the2 only horse hair fact’ry left in England.3 Mum: Good gracious,4 (0.3)5 Lesley: And he wz their buyer,6 (.)7 Mum: Hm:::8 Lesley: .t9 Mum: Hm:.

10 Lesley: → So he had a good inni:ngs did [n’t he.11 Mum: [I should say so:12 Ye:s.13 (0.2)14 Mum: Marvellous,15 Lesley: .tk .hhhh Anyway we had a very good evening o:n16 Saturda:y.

In line 10, Lesley uses the figurative expression “he had a good innings.”The phrase is metaphorical: “Innings” (used in a literal sense to refer to aperson’s turn at batting in cricket) is applied to someone’s life. It is alsofixed in composition: “Good innings” is a collocation when used in thisphrase, and the meaning is derived from the phrase rather than the individ-ual words.

Prior to, and at the start of the extract, Lesley is in the process of detail-ing aspects of the deceased man’s life including his advanced age, the factthat he was a church warden, and that he was still working. At the end of theextract (lines 15 and 16), she introduces a markedly different new topicconcerning her activities during the week. This new topic is introduced in adisjunctive manner: It is not linked to the previous talk. The figurativephrase acts as a summary and positive assessment of the preceding detail-ing regarding the man’s life. This, together with Mum’s agreements in lines

36 Elizabeth Holt and Paul Drew

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

11, 12, and 14, brings the topic to a point in which it can be terminated, andLesley consolidates this move by initiating a topic transition to an unrelatedmatter.

Distributing the figurative expressions in our corpus (of instancesdrawn from ordinary conversation) in terms of their sequential position (cf.Sacks, 1992b, p. 422) revealed that the most common pattern was prior tomarked topic changes. So regularly do figurative expressions follow thispattern that it is possible to see this as a “standard sequence” (Drew & Holt,1988, 1998). This can be represented as

1 → Speaker A: Figurative summary2 → Speaker B: Agreement (or other expression of contiguity)3 → Speaker A: Agreement/confirmation4 → Speaker A/B: Introduces next topic (Drew & Holt, 1998, p. 506)

In Extract 1, as in a number of cases in our corpus, Step 3 is elided.However, a significant number of instances do not result in this kind of

topic transition. In some cases, this is due to a lack of agreement or accordbetween participants: Thus, a summarizing figurative phrase is not fol-lowed by agreements and consolidation of the move toward topic closurebut by turns that continue the topic (see Drew & Holt, 1998). A second rea-son is that a speaker may find something further connected to or touchedoff by the figurative expression, thus creating a rather different kind of tran-sition. The following is a case in point:

(2) [F1 MAY.8:9–10]

(D is talking about bumping into someone she went to school with and howshe thought he would never amount to anything.)

1 D: .hhh hhh And I- You know it- for some2 reason he struck me as never even being3 able to get out of high school well I’s4 talking to him well he’s go-he’s got a year5 left at SMU in law school.6 M: hh [h huh huh] huh [huh .hhh].hhh=7 D: [ h h h ] [h h h h ]8 D: =and he’s rea:l cute now9 M: → .hhh We:ll see that just goes to show you

10 → he’s a late bloomer11 D: Yeah he was re:al handsome12 (1.0)13 M: → You know (0.4) sometimes the late bloomers

Figurative Pivots 37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

14 → ‘ll fool you15 (0.6)16 D: Yeah that’s true17 M: I told you about my friend who’s son18 graduated from .hhh A and [M:]19 D: [ye:]ah and he wen20 straight to law schoo:l and21 (0.5)22 M: all that kind of [stuff and now he’s ]23 D: [and now he’s workin] as a24 painter25 (0.6)26 M: driving a trailer or something

In lines 9 and 10, M uses the figurative expression “late bloomer” to refer tothe man D has been discussing: someone she knew in high school who shemet again recently and found to be about to graduate from law school. Mthen proceeds to tell a story about someone she knows who initially didwell and then failed to live up to expectations. She introduces this story byrepeating the figurative phrase in lines 13 and 14. On this occasion, it is nolonger used to refer to the man D has been talking about, but to “late bloom-ers” in general, thus providing an explicit link to a related story.

In this extract, the participants discuss two distinct matters: D’s en-counter with an acquaintance from school and M’s friend’s son. The figura-tive expression used to respond to D’s story and then repeated by M at thestart of her telling manages the transition between them. It explicitly por-trays M’s story as related to D’s (being another instance of “late bloomers[who]’ll fool you”), thus creating a stepwise transition from one story to thenext. Thus, in this instance as in the others in our collection, a figurativephrase forms a pivot between two matters. In the extracts that make up thecorpus on which this article focuses, there is a figurative phrase (or severalphrases) that forms a connection between two related matters (or mattersmade to relate through the phrase), bringing one matter to an end while si-multaneously opening up the opportunity of introducing the next. The figu-rative expressions contribute toward managing transitions that would oth-erwise seem disjunctive or would require handling as disjunctive (or wouldneed explicitly connecting to the previous matter through some othermechanism).

We begin by discussing the notion of topic and some of the difficultiesassociated with applying this to empirical data, thereby distinguishing twokinds of topic transition. It becomes apparent that the transitions on which


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

this article is based are distinct from the disjunctive topic transitions exem-plified by Extract 1. However, the features that render these figurative ex-pressions appropriate for use in marked topic transitions also make themvaluable devices in pivotal transitions. In the third section, we explore thedistinction between the use of the figurative summaries in pivotal transi-tions as compared with those in disjunctive transitions and consider wheth-er they are used strategically to forge a link to a particular new matter.

The corpus on which this analysis is based consists of a collection ofinstances of pivotal figurative expressions from naturally occurring inter-action. Most come from two-party telephone conversations. It is part of alarger collection of figurative phrases consisting of around 200 instancestaken from transcribed telephone conversations recorded in both Britainand America. For articles on other sequential patterns underpinning the useof figurative phrases in interaction, see Drew and Holt (1988, 1995, 1998).

TOPIC TRANSITION IN CONVERSATION

Although the organization of conversations into a series of topics ap-pears (to both analysts and participants) to be a ubiquitous feature, definingtopics or finding an analytic basis for separating one from another has notproved straightforward. The difficulties associated with identifying analyt-ically the referential and other linguistic means (propositional content,pro-terming, anaphora and deixis, lexical repetition) by which topical con-nections are forged (and thereby cohesion created) have been well docu-mented (cf. Brown & Yule, 1983; Levinson, 1983, pp. 312–316; Maynard,1980; Schank, 1977; Schegloff, 1990). A strategy adopted by some ana-lysts has been to treat topic as constituted in the referential content of utter-ances (see, e.g., Keenan & Schieffelin, 1976); but given that the same utter-ance may contain a number of referents and that adjacent utterances maycenter on different referents, this leads to a restricted view of topic wherebyit may inhabit a single turn or a single turn can include multiple topics (cf.Linell, 1998, chap. 10; Maynard, 1980).1

An alternative approach has been to concentrate on boundaries be-tween topics (see, e.g., Schank, 1977). This is commensurate with a con-versation analytic approach in which topic is viewed as “constituted inthe procedures conversationalists utilize to display understanding and toachieve one turn’s proper fit with a prior” (Maynard, 1980, p. 263). Analy-sis of “marked” (Sacks, 1992b, p. 352) or “disjunctive” (Jefferson, 1984)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

topic changes has begun to reveal how participants orient to and collab-oratively work to achieve topicality (cf. Button & Casey, 1984, 1985,1988–1989; Crow, 1983; Maynard, 1980). In disjunctive topic changes, theparticipants work to disengage one turn’s fit with a prior turn and so pro-duce a demarcation of one topic from the next. These transitions usually in-volve the introduction of a markedly different matter to the one discussedpreviously and are therefore radical topic changes.2 The following is a casein point:

(3) [NB:II:2:24]

(Nancy is describing her current emotional and financial situation and herresulting reluctance to date men.)

1 Nancy: u-thet ah:n (.) I’m jst not ready2 fer any kind’v a battle,=3 = [.hhhhhh ]hhh yet at a: [ll4 Emma: [°Mm-mm°] [Well’at’s ↓good,5 thet yer6 (0.4)7 Emma: .hhh yer keep’n busy that’s good,8 Nancy: ↑Well su ↓:re. Worki [n °(evry]kow:nss)°]9 Emma: [Tha:t’s ] ↓a : ll, ]

10 (.)11 Nancy: °r:↑Ri:ght.°=12 Emma: → =A::LRI[GHTY I do ]n’ know]=13 Nancy: [°(Ye::ah ]ut suh)°]14 Emma: → =What ti:me izzit I- I: WOKE UP et15 a::↑six ↓this16 mor:n[ing Go]:d what ]izzit q ]uarter=17 Nancy: [ O h : ] m y ]G*o::d. ]18 Emma: =after eleven?19 Nancy: °eYa:h,°20 (1.0)21 Nancy: °Ya[h wul° ]22 Emma: [The SU]:N’S COMIN OU:T.

Prior to and at the start of Extract 3, Nancy is talking about problems withher husband from whom she is separated and her reluctance to date men inher current situation. In lines 12 and 14, Emma initiates a new topic with“A::LRIGHTY I don’ know What ti:me izzit.”

In a similar manner to Extract 1 previously, when the new topic is in-troduced in line 12, it is not connected to the prior: No elements of the com-position need to be understood in terms of what has been said just before-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

hand. For example, it contains no deictic terms whose reference needs to bederived from the prior talk, and it is not tied to the previous turn through, forexample, the use of a turn initial such as well, but, or so. In fact the turn ini-tial “A::LRIGHTY,” with its increased amplitude, appears to contribute toindicating that Emma is embarking on something new and unrelated to theprevious talk (see Beach, 1993).

However, topic transitions in conversation rarely have clear-cut boun-daries: Rather, the participants link each new matter to the previous suchthat a range of matters may be discussed without any overt termination ofone prior to the introduction of a next. This is called “stepwise” movement(Sacks, 1992b, p. 566) or “topic shading” (Schegloff & Sacks, 1973). It in-volves linking what is being introduced to the previous turn in such a waythat participants may come to discuss distinct matters without dislodgingthe “tying structures” (Sacks, 1992a, p. 540) whereby a turn is made to fitwith the previous (through the pro-terms, etc.). According to Sacks (1992a,pp. 535–543), topics are an artefact of the tying mechanisms fundamentalto conversation, in other words, of the way each turn is built to display anunderstanding of and “fit” with the previous turn. A feature of conversationis that “generally, a turn’s talk will be heard as directed to a prior turn’stalk” (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974, p. 728). It is because partici-pants generally work to tie each turn to the previous turn that the bound-aries between topics are hard to identify, making it difficult for analysts todistinguish both the topic of a sequence of talk and the precise point atwhich topics change.

The following is an extract from an instance of stepwise transition ana-lyzed in detail by Jefferson (1984).

(4) [NB:IV:10:18-19]

1 E: If I’d just gone down there and spent my2 Thanksgiving like, Tillie wanted me to, why3 I would of had no problems, and hell with the4 Thanksgiving dinner. I’m through. I’m not gonna5 do anything anymore.6 (0.6)7 L: [Yeah.8 E: [I’m n- … I’m not gonna plan things anymore. I9 mean this is ridiculous, course I know Mister

10 Cole’s sick, let’s God let’s hope he gets well,11 but .hhhhh I know the problem hhh you know, hh12 L: What does he ha:ve.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

13 E: .hh Oh he’s got this gall bladder, and uh, they-14 he’s vomiting and everything they took him to15 the hospital and I don’t know how long he’s16 gonna be in or what the t- well he’s he’s17 gonna be eighty four:r,18 (1.0)19 L: Yea:h. [Well-20 E: [And he’s quite a playboy, you know,21 L: Yeah, you just got to be caref well see, .hh22 Dwight only has- one gall bladder?23 (1.0)24 E: Mm hm,25 L: He had- and then he has to be careful what26 he eats, he can’t eat anything greasy or27 anything you know,28 E: Mm hm29 L: Go:d what a ma:n. He was out there this30 morning and he- they have these great big31 olive trees all over you know,32 E: Mm hm,33 L: And the wind was so bad that the-th- the34 branches were hitting the house, and God35 (0.3) uh, I got up well, it was about36 eight o’clock,37 E: Mm [hm,38 L: [and here he’s up there sawing those39 off, you know,40 E: Mm::: [wonderful.41 L: [M a n he’s [( )-42 E: [God he’s about sixty43 seven or eight.44 L: Yeah. Sixty seven.45 E: God love him.46 L: But man, I mean they really, They’ve47 really got ul- oh: God what a house.48 You have no idea.

At the start of and prior to this extract, E is engaged in a troubles tellingconcerning problems associated with her plans for a family Thanksgivingincluding the fact that she and her husband have fallen out and that herson-in-law’s father, Mr. Cole, is ill. Then L proceeds to talk about first thehost and then the house of a couple she has just enjoyed staying with.Therefore, by the end of this extract, the speakers are far from where theybegan but without any noticeable termination of one topic or introduction


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

of a next. Nowhere is the referential link each turn has with its previousbroken to introduce a new and unrelated matter.

However, although stepwise transitions do not contain the kinds ofclear boundaries exemplified by Extracts 1 and 3 previously, they may con-tain turns in which a participant does visible work to facilitate the introduc-tion of a new matter. In her analysis, Jefferson (1984) referred to these as“pivotal utterances.” In Extract 4, the utterance in lines 21 to 22—“well see,.hh Dwight only has- one gall bladder”—is pivotal. It is obviously con-nected to the prior topic: L’s use of lexical repetition of “gall bladder”(rather than deixis) serves to highlight this connection. However, it also has“independent topical potential” (Jefferson, 1984, p. 203), making talkabout other matters concerning Dwight relevant. It is part of a series ofmoves that help to produce a number of connected steps from talk about thetrouble to the telling of a good time had by the troubles recipient.

The mentioning of Mr. Cole’s gall-bladder problem by E provides Lwith a resource that she uses to create a connection to talk about the healthof the man she has just been to stay with (which makes relevant talk abouther visit). In fact, in doing so, it may be that L makes a mistake: She saysher host “only has- one gall bladder” when in fact, the body only contains asingle gall bladder (Jefferson, 1984, footnote 3, p. 221, suggested that whathe may have only one of is a kidney). Thus, it is possible that the connec-tion is, to some extent, being contrived by L. Nevertheless, the connectiondrawn by L between Mr. Cole’s condition and her friend’s state of health al-lows her to shift the focus of the topic without any disruption to the tying ofturns. L produces a general assessment “you just got to be caref”3 then in aself-interruptive manner, she introduces her host “well see, .hh Dwightonly has- one gall bladder,” explicitly linking his circumstances to her as-sessment (that connects to talk about Mr. Cole’s condition) by saying “hehas to be careful what he eats …” (“he” in lines 25 and 26 refers to herhost). So the shift is achieved through the connection the new matter has tothe subject of Mr. Cole’s gall bladder and also appears to be touched off byL’s general assessment.

So, in sequences of interaction in which each turn is fitted to the priorwith no disruption to the coherence of the talk, there may be a single turn ora number of turns that speakers exploit as a resource in initiating a shiftfrom one matter to another. Another look at Extract 2 reveals that in thistransition, there is no explicit boundarying off of one topic before the intro-duction of a new matter. Here, although at the beginning the participantsare discussing D’s encounter with a high school acquaintance and at the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

end M’s friend’s son, each turn is tied to the previous such that the fit it haswith the prior is not dislodged. However, turns within the talk act as a re-source whereby the transition is made. At one and the same time, they areconnected to the previous but also make talk about other matters relevant,thus performing a pivotal role between the previous matter and a new one.Rather than being disjunctive, this new matter is made to connect with theprevious through these pivotal turns:

(2) [F1 MAY.8:9–10]

1 D: .hhh hhh And I- You know it- for some2 reason he struck me as never even being3 able to get out of high school well I’s4 talking to him well he’s go-he’s got a year5 left at SMU in law school.6 M: hh [h huh huh] huh [huh .hhh].hhh=7 D: [ h h h ] [ h h h h ]8 D: =and he’s rea:l cute now9 M: → .hhh We:ll see that just goes to show you

10 → he’s a late bloomer11 D: Yeah he was re:al handsome12 (1.0)13 M: → You know (0.4) sometimes the late bloomers14 → ‘ll fool you15 (0.6)16 D: Yeah that’s true17 M: I told you about my friend who’s son18 graduated from .hhh A and [M:]19 D: [ye:]ah and he wen20 straight to law schoo:l and21 (0.5)22 M: all that kind of [stuff and now he’s ]23 D: [and now he’s workin] as a24 painter25 (0.6)26 M: driving a trailer or something

In lines 9 and 10, M responds to D’s story with the figurative phrase “We:llsee that just goes to show you he’s a late bloomer.” This serves to summa-rize the preceding detailing about the man’s activities. It is no longer add-ing to the empirical details but refers to the matter as a whole. It also pro-vides a positive gloss of those details, thus simultaneously assessing them.This figurative summary assessment contributes toward bringing this topic


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

to a possible completion point. D then agrees and adds a further assessment(line 11). In lines 13 and 14, M repeats the figurative phrase; although onsecond usage, it is further detached from the specifics of this story, for ex-ample, whereas D refers to “he” in line 10, on this usage, it becomes “thelate bloomers.” It makes relevant talk about other “late bloomers,” and itappears that M has a related story to tell that she introduces in line 17.Through the use of the figurative summary, this story is introduced con-junctively rather than disjunctively: It is made to connect to the previous bybeing portrayed as coming under the same rubric.

In fact, the story that M tells is not about a “late bloomer” at all but thevery opposite: Her friend’s son initially did well and then failed to live up tohis potential. Thus, it appears that the connection between these two storiesis somewhat contrived. A comparison can be drawn between this instanceand Extract 4 in which it transpired that L’s claim that her host “only has-one gall bladder” is also a possibly contrived connection. In both casesthen, a speaker exploits the “independent topical potential” (Jefferson,1984, p. 203) of a prior turn to introduce a new matter, and the “engineer-ing” of the link from one matter to a next is particularly obvious: It is possi-ble to see participants working strategically to forge connections between anew matter and a previous to render the figurative expression pivotal be-tween related subjects.

Extract 2 differs from those in Jefferson’s (1984) corpus, however, inthat it occupies a different sequential environment. Jefferson’s (1984) in-stances involve stepwise movement from a troubles telling to a topic thatcould be deemed inappropriate had it been introduced too soon: For exam-ple, in Extract 4, the transition is from E detailing her marital and familyproblems to L telling of her enjoyable stay with friends. Figurative pivotaltransitions are distinct in that the talk preceding the pivot consists of a rangeof different types of topics including, but not being restricted to, troublestelling. Second, rather than following a summing up and a turning to ancil-lary matters, the figurative expressions constitute or contribute to a sum-mary of the preceding talk. The stepwise transitions following troublestellings in Jefferson’s (1984) corpus occur rather more gradually, consist-ing of a number of connected sequences. Jefferson (1984) pointed out thatthe pivotal turn in Extract 4 is preceded by “summing up the heart of thetrouble” (p. 202; lines 1–9), the troubles teller turning to ancillary matters(lines 9–11), and the troubles recipient topically stabilizing the ancillarymatter (line 12). In our corpus, the transitions tend to be more succinct.Rather than following a summing up, the figurative phrase generally con-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

tributes toward that summing up. However, at the same time, it generalizesfrom the matter at hand to render other matters relevant, one of which isthen introduced following the figurative summary. In Extract 2, the figura-tive phrase is used to summarize talk about the man D encountered and thenrepeated as M moves to introduce her friend’s son.

Jefferson (1984) used the term pivot to refer to a turn that connects tothe prior turn but makes talk about other matters relevant. Schegloff (1979)also used the term pivot but in a rather different sense. Schegloff employedit to refer to instances in which a speaker makes a repair at a place wherethere is a convergence in sound between the repairable and the repair: a sin-gle sound forms a pivot between the two. Schegloff (1979) gave the follow-ing example:

(A has had a claim of hers called an exaggeration.)

A: DON’T SAY that I’m exa-just say I’m a liar. (Schegloff, 1979, p. 275)

The repair is initiated at the sound j, which is uttered as part of “exa[gger-ating],” but is used as the initial sound in “just.” Thus, although these arerather different uses of the term pivot (from each other and from our use ofthe term), they retain a notion of an element that plays a pivotal role be-tween a prior and next element: thus, the move hangs on a single unit(whether it is a sound, a turn, or a turn component).4 Like us, they are high-lighting the Janus-faced nature of turns or components at talk: that al-though they appear fully connected to prior elements (turns or componentsof the same turn), they also constitute a move away, forming a bridge to lessclosely connected or even unrelated elements. This is what we have in mindwhen we refer to these figurative expressions as pivotal. In Schegloff’s(1979) instances, the connection is formed through a sound; in Jefferson’s(1984) and in this corpus, the connection may be underlined by the repeti-tion of a word or phrase but lies largely in the semantics of the turn. Thus, aphrase that is tied to the prior (referentially and in terms of its design) isused as a stepping stone to a new matter that is made to connect to thephrase but constitutes a move away from the matter discussed up until thatpoint.

Analysis of figurative expressions followed by marked topic changes(Drew & Holt, 1988, 1995, 1998) has revealed that one reason these de-vices are recurrently associated with bringing talk about some matter to aclose is that they act as summary assessments of the preceding detailing:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

They summarize by linking back to many elements of the preceding talk,and at the same time, they often act as assessments by glossing those detailsin a positive or negative light. This is also true of the figurative expressionsin pivotal transitions. According to Jefferson (1984), summary assessmentscan be topic termination implicative, and in these and the other pivotal ex-pressions in our corpus, the reporting of some matter is brought to a closewith a figurative expression that summarizes and assesses the precedingdetailing. By acting as summary assessments of the preceding details, figu-rative expressions connect back to more than the contiguously prior turn.However, the same features that render them appropriate summary assess-ments also give them independent topical potential. These features includethe fact that because they are removed from adding to the detailing, theytend to be rather generalized. Furthermore, it appears that assessments re-currently act as topic boundaries; as well as being topic termination rele-vant, they are also associated with topic openings (see Jefferson, 1984).

Thus, figurative summary assessments can act as topic boundaries,constituted as such by turns that follow the expression. In the standardsequence for figurative topic termination outlined previously, the expres-sion is constituted as a closing down of one topic before the introductionof a radical change of topic. In pivotal transitions, the expression is con-stituted as forming a connection to a new but related matter. Rather thanworking to further disengage from the current topic so that a new one canbe introduced, the turn/turns that follow a pivotal figurative expressionconnect the new matter to the expression (and sometimes also to the pre-vious topic).

FIGURATIVE SUMMARIES AS PIVOTS

To illustrate further these pivotal topic transitions with which we areconcerned, we present some instances from our corpus. In these extracts, aturn or turns containing a figurative expression contributes toward forminga pivot between two topics.

In some instances (including Extract 2 previously), the figurative ex-pression and the initiation of the new topic are produced by the samespeaker. In the next extract, the recipient of a telling uses the expression“open house” to refer to the teller’s entertaining activities as well as provid-ing a link to a new matter that she then initiates. Thus, again, the figurative


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

summary and the initiation of the new matter are produced by the recipientin the previous telling:

(5) [PT:5]

(Margy Friday is talking about the guests who are about to come to stay.)

1 Margy: … So she’s gunnuh come down u-I:- I don’kno:w2 how long she’ll be uhere.[.hh3 Edna: [whhh-hhh=4 Margy: =B’[t uh5 Edna: → [n-Open House et the Fri[days.].hhhhhhhh]=6 Margy: [hhhhh]hhih-hhih]=7 Margy: =[.hhh8 Edna: =[Ma:rgy I- I: mar[vel]atche rilly.eh you9 Margy: [hhh]

10 fascinate me,=11 Margy: =hh=12 Edna: =I[ve never]seen a ga:l=13 Margy: [hOh(h)o ]14 Edna: =li[:ke you.]15 Margy: [°E(h)edn]a #:::[↑ah]16 Edna: [ I ] ↑mean it.17 Margy: °nNo[: no: no. ]18 Edna: [.hhYou do evry]thing so beautif’lly19 end yer table wz so byoo-I told Bud I20 said ↑honestly. .hhhhh ih wz ji:st deli:ghtful21 t’come down there that day en meet …

Prior to and at the start of Extract 5, Margy is detailing the plans she haswhen her mother comes to visit with a friend of hers. In line 5, Edna figura-tively summarizes and assesses these details as amounting to Margy havingan “Open House.” She then begins an elaborate compliment (lines 8, 10,12, and 14), which because it follows this positive summary assessmentseems to refer (at least in part) to Margy’s entertaining activities. She pro-ceeds to praise Margy for the dinner party Edna and her husband recentlyattended (thanking her being her reason for calling). Notice that the subjectof the dinner party is introduced in a highly implicit manner: “Yer table” re-fers to its arrangement for the dinner party. Thus, Edna appears to rely onthe fact that “Open House et the Fridays” makes relevant talk about otherentertaining activities.

The next extract illustrates that rather than producing a single figura-tive phrase providing a pivot between matters, a flurry of them may form


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

part of several turns or an extended turn that forms a pivot. In the extract,the pivot is again produced by the recipient in the prior telling:

(6) (H:May88:2:4: 10–11)

(At the start of the extract, Mark is talking about the fact that his wife, Lesley,is currently a full-time temporary teacher.)

1 Deena: where is sh-2 (0.2)3 Mark: We:ll she’s in a local schoo:l, she went .hhhh she gotta4 ca:ll:: at the beginning a’September to ass’to go i:n::5 (.) .k gn cover for z- a teacher ‘oo wz i:ll

((14 lines omitted regarding the teacher’s illness and when Lesleywill be finishing teaching))

19 Mark: But uh:m:n (0.2) it wz a bit unexpected < (0.3) b’you know20 ih-ih-ehhheh huh .hhe:hh she sudd’nly got la:nded with it really21 .hhh But she’s enjoyed it very mu[ch. .hhh22 Deena: [We:ll this is (.) this is the23 thin[g Mark an’ after all it does get her=24 Mark: [hhhohhh25 Deena: =↓out doe [sn’t it and uh (0.6) I [mean at uh even at our time=26 Mark: [Ye:h. .h .hhhhh [That’s right27 Deena: =a’life dear we c’n do with a few extra pennie[s ca:n’t [↓we.28 Mark: [.p.hhhh [We::ll29 yes it doesn’t hu:rt ye: [ : s . [°hu°30 Deena: [You know, [ I mean you’ve got to co:me31 what we’ve we:re we-we’re j’s >goin’ through a wedding an32 my goodness Mark does that make a ‘ole in [your po[cket<33 Mark: [.hhhh [hWell I:34 gather so:. Ye:h. .h[hhh35 Deena: [Good gr:ief you don’t well we had been36 wa:rned …

At the start of this extract, Mark is talking about his wife’s experience ofteaching; by the end, Deena is talking about the cost of weddings with ref-erence to her daughter’s upcoming marriage. Between lines 22 and 32,Deena uses a number of figurative phrases that contribute toward forming apivot and introducing the new matter. First, she summarizes Mark’s tellingwith “this is the thing,” going on to provide two reasons for assessing thenews positively. First, she says that it gets her out, then she introduces a fi-nancial aspect (although this has not entered into Mark’s telling) using theexpressions “even at our time a’life” and “a few extra pennies.” AfterMark’s agreement, she then precedes (lines 30–32) to introduce the matter


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

of the cost of weddings by first linking it to Mark’s concerns (saying he hasyet to experience it) and using a further figurative phrase, “hole in yourpocket.”

In the extracts involving figurative pivots included so far (Extracts 2, 5,and 6), the recipient of a telling uses a summary assessment involving a fig-urative expression (or expressions) in bringing that matter to a close beforeproceeding to introduce a new one. In other instances, both the telling priorto the transition and the figurative expression are produced by the samespeaker. In Extract 7, Deena and Mark are again discussing Deena’s daugh-ter’s forthcoming wedding:

(7) [Holt:May88:2:4:14–15]

1 Deena: Really it’s ju [st horrendous you know the2 Mark: [Km:::hhhh3 Deena: ti:[me that (.) you haf to book things ‘n=4 Mark: [((fidgeting————————————))=5 Deena: =(0.2) you know goin’ in motion ‘n you get6 Mark: ——-))7 Deena: lu:ll ‘n no:w (.) believe it or not it’s8 u-only nine weeks a[way it’s beginning to9 Mark: [( )

10 Deena: build up agai[n we’re11 Mark: [ehhh hhehh hheh hhuh.12 Deena: checking[up on eve[rything to make su:re13 Mark: [.hhhhhh [.hhhh14 [it’s .hhhh everything’s still going ]=15 Mark: [((fidgeting———————————))]=16 Deena: =[everything’s (.) you kno:w ]=17 Mark: =[((fidgeting——————-))]=18 Mark: =I KNO:W YE[S:::19 Deena: [Bu:t uh:m [: I tell you ]=20 Mark: [.h h h h h h]=21 Deena: → =[Mark it does make a hole in your]=22 Mark: =[((fidgeting—————————]=23 Deena: → =[pocket [though (I [warn you[)24 Mark: =[——-))[.hhhh [Well I [k- I c’n25 well imagine we .hhhhh we had a s:mall26 do: just a local thing here in Cary27 this (.) the last year about this time28 last year. Which wz just a little (0.2)29 .hhhh private thing which we organi:zed,h30 .hhh uh:m:: (0.4) a:n:d uh: it wz31 surprizing how much: actual effort wen’32 into that we jus: hired th’village ha ↓ ll …


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

At the beginning of Extract 7, Deena is engaged in a protracted tellingabout the arrangements for her daughter’s wedding. In lines 21 and 23, sheproduces a summary that is also a figurative expression; “I tell you Mark itdoes make a hole in your pocket.” In the next turn, Mark consolidates thismove to possible topic closure by first agreeing and then introducing a newmatter: He recalls holding a party, linking it to the previous topic by empha-sizing the amount of organization it required.

In these instances, therefore, a turn including or consisting of a figurativeexpression is used to summarize talk about a prior matter: In Extract 5, Ednauses “open house” to summarize Margy’s talk about her guests, and in Extract6, Deena uses several figurative expressions—“this is the thing,“ “at our timea’life,”and“a fewextrapennies”—topositivelyassessandsummarizeMark’swife’s teaching activities. In Extract 7, Deena uses the expression “makes ahole in your pocket” to summarize her detailing of the costs involved in thewedding. These figurative summaries are not followed by a disjunctive transi-tion to a distinct new topic. Instead, one of the participants finds something re-lated to talkabout,possibly touchedoffby theprevious talkorby the figurativesummary itself. Thus, a new matter is introduced without any disruption to thetying of turns: Each subsequent turn is fitted to the previous in a way that con-trastswith the introductionof thenewtopic inExtract1.There, the initiationofthe new topic—“Anyway we had a very good evening o:n Saturda:y”—is notconnected to the turns that precede it, and the inclusion of the prefatory “Any-way” explicitly marks it as such. The transitions in Extracts 5 to 7 are rathermore like stepwise transitions because the coherence is not disrupted. How-ever, in contradistinction to those analyzed by Jefferson (1984), these arebriefer, with the transition often occurring over two turns.

By summarizing talk about a prior matter, the figurative expression con-tributes toward bringing this to a close. The environment is now ripe for topictransition, but instead of the new topic being introduced in a disjunctive man-ner, the figurative summary is used as a resource in making a connection to anew matter; this new matter being made to connect to the previous throughthe figurative summary (or elements of the prior talk; see Extract 7).

Another look at Extract 2 illustrates the mechanisms by which partici-pants exploit the potential of the figurative summary to make other mattersrelevant to introduce one of those matters:

(2) [Detail]

9 M: → .hhh We:ll see that just goes to show you10 → he’s a late bloomer11 D: Yeah he was re:al handsome


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

12 (1.0)13 M: → You know (0.4) sometimes the late bloomers14 → ‘ll fool you15 (0.6)16 D: Yeah that’s true17 M: I told you about my friend who’s son18 graduated from .hhh A and [M:]

When M employs the expression “late bloomer” in line 10, she uses it to re-fer specifically to the acquaintance D has been discussing. However, whenM repeats the expression in lines 13 and 14, she begins to exploit the poten-tial of the phrase to refer to a general category of people who might be in-cluded under this rubric. Thus, “a late bloomer” becomes “the late bloom-ers” on its second usage. A feature of figurative expressions is that they aregeneralized. Introducing a figurative summary usually involves movingfrom discussing empirical details of the matter at hand to a much more gen-eral level (Drew & Holt, 1998). This is one reason that figurative expres-sions are well suited to summarizing various details of the preceding talk.In lines 17 and 18, M exploits the potential of the figurative expression tomake relevant talk about other members of the category by introducing thestory of someone else. (We have already seen how this can be considered arather contrived connection in the light of subsequent details.)

In Extract 2, it is M who exploits the potential of the figurative expres-sion to introduce a related matter; prior to this transition, D has been tellinga story. Thus, another dimension that renders the talk prior to and followingthe figurative summary capable of being regarded as distinct (and the sum-mary as pivotal between them) is that these transitions tend to be accompa-nied by a change in the identity of the teller and recipient. Similarly, in Ex-tract 5, Margy is detailing the arrangements of her guests; after the pivot,Edna praises her for the dinner party. In Extract 6, Mark has been talkingabout Lesley’s teaching; after the transition, Deena talks about the wed-ding; and in Extract 7, Deena is talking about the wedding, and afterward,Mark talks about a “do” he arranged.5

The pattern of contributions of each participant varies across these in-stances. In Extracts 2, 5, and 6, the figurative summary is performed by therecipient of the prior telling. In Extract 7, the teller does a figurative sum-mary before the recipient initiates a transition to a new matter. Thus, in Ex-tracts 2, 5, and 6, the figurative summary is used by one participant to sum-marize talk by the other participant. Analysis of figurative expressions inthe termination-transition sequence revealed that overwhelmingly they areused by the speaker to summarize what they themselves have been report-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

ing rather than what their coparticipant has said; they are self-summaries(Drew & Holt, 1998, p. 504). Extract 1 previously is a case in point: Lesleyuses the expression “So he had a good inni:ngs” to summarize her detailingof the deceased man’s circumstances. In our collection of pivotal figurativetransitions, it is noticeable that a number comprise a figurative expressionused to summarize the telling of a coparticipant. In Extract 2, for example,M used the phrase “late bloomer” to summarize D’s story.

So, although figurative expressions tend to be self-summaries, theyare not necessarily so. These expressions can be employed to summarizewhat a coparticipant has been reporting. When the prior teller does thefigurative summary, it is possible that they do so in an attempt to initiatetopic termination. (In Extract 7, e.g., Deena’s use of the expression“make a hole in your pocket” opens up the possibility of terminating thetopic. Instead of initiating a disjunctive transition to a new matter, how-ever, Mark exploits the opportunity by linking the new topic to the previ-ous, first by agreeing with the figurative expression and then introducinghis story as an elaboration.) However, when the recipient does a figura-tive summary, it is possible that it is part of an attempt to exploit the link-age to introduce a next topic in a stepwise fashion. In other words, it ispossible that the figurative summary is used strategically to contribute to-ward initiating a transition from one matter to a next. Thus, a speakermay produce a turn incorporating a figurative expression to summarizetalk about one matter, thus making termination of this matter relevant andat the same time providing a link to another matter that is then introducedconjunctively rather than disjunctively. Extracts 5 and 6 are possible ex-amples of such strategic transitions:

(5) [PT:5]

(Margy Friday is talking about the guests who are about to come to stay.)

1 Margy: …So she’s gunnuh come down u-I:- I don’kno:w2 how long she’ll be uhere.[.hh3 Edna: [whhh-hhh=4 Margy: =B’[t uh5 Edna: → [n-Open House et the Fri[days.].hhhhhhhh]=6 Margy: [hhhhh]hhih-hhih]=7 Margy: =[.hhh8 Edna: =[Ma:rgy I- I: mar[vel]atche rilly.eh you9 Margy: [hhh]

10 fascinate me,=11 Margy: =hh=12 Edna: =I[ve never]seen a ga:l=


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

13 Margy: [hOh(h)o ]14 Edna: =li[:ke you.]15 Margy: [°E(h)edn]a #:::[↑ah]16 Edna: [ I ] ↑mean it.17 Margy: °nNo[: no: no. ]18 Edna: [.hhYou do evry]thing so beautif’lly19 end yer table wz so byoo-I told Bud I20 said ↑honestly. .hhhhh ih wz ji:st deli:ghtful21 t’come down there that day en meet …

(6) [Detail]

19 Mark: But uh:m:n (0.2) it wz a bit unexpected < (0.3) b’you know20 ih-ih-ehhheh huh .hhe:hh she sudd’nly got la:nded with it really21 .hhhBut she’s enjoyed it very mu [ch. .hhh22 Deena: [We:ll this is (.) this is the23 thin[g Mark an’ after all it does get her=24 Mark: [hhhohhh25 Deena: =↓out doe [sn’t it and uh (0.6) I [mean at uh even at our time=26 Mark: [Ye:h. .h .hhhhh [That’s right27 Deena: =a’life dear we c’n do with a few extra pennie [s ca:n’t [↓we.28 Mark [.p.hhhh[We::ll29 yes it doesn’t hu:rt ye:[ : s . [°hu°30 Deena: [You know, [ I mean you’ve got to co:me31 what we’ve we:re we-we’re j’s >goin’ through a wedding an32 my goodness Mark does that make a ‘ole in[your po[cket<

In both of these instances, the recipient of a telling uses a figurative sum-mary prior to introducing a new matter. A noticeable feature of these is thatthe pivots are quite extended and are possibly built to reserve the speaker anextended turn at talk to forge a link to a particular new matter while givingthe recipient limited opportunities either to further contribute to the previ-ous matter or make use of the transition relevance to introduce a new one.For example, in Extract 6, Deena uses a number of components that con-tribute toward creating an extended turn at talk. The backslashes indicatethe start of components that prolong the turn:

We:ll this is (.) this is the thing Markan’ after all it does get he ↓out /doesn’t itand uh (0.6) I mean at uh even at our time a’life dear we c’n do with a few extra pen-nies /ca:n’t ↓we.

The presence of the terms of address and the tag questions may also helpDeena to retain the speakership to execute this pivot to a new matter. Ac-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

cording to Sacks (1992a, p. 264), after the answer to a question, the personwho asked the question has the chance to speak again. Thus, these might in-vite agreement without encouraging a longer contribution from Mark thatcould disrupt the trajectory.

A further feature of these extracts is that the pivots are highly other at-tentive. In analyzing stepwise transitions from talk about a trouble to an-other matter, Jefferson (1984) found that steps toward topic transition initi-ated by the troubles recipient (ancillary stabilizer utterances and summaryassessments) were strongly other attentive. Thus, the troubles recipientmaintains “interactional cohesiveness” as they begin to move away fromthe troubles telling by initiating talk about the concerns of the troublesteller. Jefferson (1984) suggestd that such displays of interactional cohe-siveness may be “a general technique for the management of topical rup-ture” (p. 213).

In both Extracts 5 and 6, the transition to the new matter is, at leastinitially, constructed as other attentive. In Extract 5, the figurative ex-pression “open house” used by Edna is other attentive in that it sum-marizes and assesses Margy’s entertaining activities. Edna then proceedsto produce an elaborate assessment of Margy’s qualities before introduc-ing the topic of the dinner party. In Extract 6, Deena first introduces thematter of Lesley’s pay as another reason for positively assessing herteaching role, then introduces the wedding in a highly other-attentiveway: She says that Mark and Lesley still have that experience to comeand that it is expensive. Only then does her contribution become self-at-tentive as she discusses her previous experience of weddings and herdaughter’s wedding. (Notice, however, that although Deena’s summaryassessment regarding the usefulness of Lesley’s salary orients to Mark’sconcerns, financial aspects have not been part of his telling; so the sum-mary is self-serving as Deena moves toward talking about the cost ofweddings.)

The corpus on which Jefferson (1984) based her observation involvedtransitions from troubles tellings. In Extracts 5 and 6, the tellers at the startsof the extracts are not engaged in troubles tellings. Thus, it seems that dis-plays of interactional cohesiveness at topic termination are not restricted toa troubles-telling environment and in Extracts 5 and 6, may be associatedwith strategic transition to a particular next matter. So, a noticeable featureof these pivotal transitions is that some of the figurative expressions are notself-summaries but are used by the recipient of the telling. In these cases,the expression may be used strategically to create a connection to a particu-lar next matter.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

CONCLUSION

A fundamental feature of talk-in-interaction is that participants workto tie each turn to the previous turn. Occasions when participants work todislodge these tying mechanisms to introduce a new topic are the exceptionrather than the rule. Consequently, topic transitions tend to occur in a seam-less/stepwise fashion. An upshot of this is that distinguishing topics of con-versation is analytically problematic because the boundaries between themare hard to identify, and hence, it is often impossible to say that a stretch oftalk constitutes a coherent topic based on its reference to a single matter.However, as Jefferson’s (1984) and this analysis have demonstrated, it ispossible to identify the mechanisms by which stepwise transition betweenmatters is managed. These mechanisms are especially clear in pivotal tran-sitions and perhaps particularly so in figurative pivotal changes in whichthe transition may take place over two turns: a figurative expression thatsummarizes the previous telling and has independent topical potential anda next turn that introduces a new but related matter by connecting it to theexpression, so exploiting this independent topical potential.

In pivotal transitions, participants design their turns so that each is tiedto the previous without dislodging the coherence of the interaction. Thefigurative turn is used as a resource whereby a transition to a new matter ismade but where it is tied to the previous. In each of the instances includedin this article, a transition is made between two distinct matters: in Extract2, between D’s school acquaintance to M’s friend’s son; in Extract 5, fromthe impending visit of Margy’s guests to the dinner party; in Extract 6, fromMark’s wife’s teaching to Deena’s daughter’s wedding; and in Extract 7,from the wedding to a party Mark threw some years ago. In each case, thetransition would seem disjunctive or would have to be handled as disjunc-tive if it were not for the figurative pivot: The pivot forms a bridge, connect-ing to the previous matter but providing an opportunity to introduce a newone. Elements of the design of figurative expressions render them particu-larly appropriate for this task. Most salient is the fact that they recurrentlyact as summary assessments of the prior reporting/telling, thus potentiallybounding off that topic and making other related matters relevant that canbe introduced in a stepwise fashion. The fact that they entail a move awayfrom the step-by-step development of the topic to a generic level contrib-utes toward their potential to make talk about other matters relevant.

Prior research (Drew & Holt, 1998) into the use of figurative expres-sions in conversation revealed that a particularly striking pattern or organi-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

zation associated with figurative expressions is in acting as summary as-sessments of a topic that contributes to terminating that topic before a newone is disjunctively introduced. The research reported here reveals that fig-urative expressions are also recurrently associated with pivotal transitions:Their summary character provides resources exploitable in creating linksto new but related matters. This new matter is then introduced in a stepwiserather than a disjunctive manner.

As Jefferson’s (1984) analysis of stepwise transitions from a troublestelling reveals, other types of turns, besides those including the use of a fig-urative phrase as an element of their construction, can act as pivots. How-ever, this analysis has explored elements of the design of these devices thatrender them especially suited to this task. It has also revealed some distinc-tions between figurative pivots and the pivotal utterances analyzed by Jef-ferson (1984). First, a distinction can be drawn in terms of the environ-ments in which they occur: Jefferson’s (1984) pivotal turns are preceded bytroubles tellings; although some of those in our corpus follow troublestellings, many do not. In fact, they are used to summarize a wide range oftopics from troubles tellings about one’s financial or marital problems totalk about running into a school acquaintance or one’s forthcoming guests.Second, whereas the pivots in Jefferson’s (1984) corpus follow a summingup of the trouble and a turning to ancillary matters, the figurative pivots si-multaneously act as a summary of preceding details. Further, this analysishas provided further evidence to support Jefferson’s (1994) suggestion thatdisplays of interactional cohesiveness may be “a general technique for themanagement of topical rupture” (p. 213).

This research underlines the importance to an understanding of talk-in-interaction of analyzing both the design of devices in interaction and thesequence of turns that form the environment to which they contribute.Analysis of turns containing a figurative expression as an element of theirconstruction reveals that aspects of their design facilitate their use as sum-mary assessments of a prior telling or reporting. However, it is only by ex-amining the sequence in which they occur, and particularly subsequentturns, that it becomes evident that they are regularly associated with/con-tribute toward topic transition. Two trajectories are recurrent. First, andmost commonly, the participants collaborate in further disengaging fromthe previous topic, thus bringing it to a close prior to a participant introduc-ing an unconnected new topic. Second, one of the participants uses the turncontaining the figurative expression as a pivot by introducing a new matterin such a way that it connects with the prior but shifts the focus. Figurative


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

phrases are not pivotal by their nature (although aspects of their design ren-der them particularly appropriate for this action) but become so due to thenature of subsequent turns.

NOTES

1 The problems associated with taking an approach to topic that relies solely on the refer-ents of turns can be illustrated by the following extract:

[H:SO88(II):1:3:3–4]

(The speakers have been discussing the date of a forthcoming dance and whyit may have been changed from its usual slot on the fourth Saturday of themonth.)

1 Hal: I believe (.) d-uh three of four: that2 come: are in the carnival anywa:[y.3 Les: [.tch gAh:,4 (0.2)5 Les: n[Yes.6 Hal: [So uh:m ehm (0.2) i:t will be next7 Saturd[ay.(if) ]=8 Les: [ Right]=9 Hal: =[(you c’n]come.)]

10 Les: =[ that’s ] lovel]y. Oh [↓good.11 ( ): [( )12 (Hal): [( )13 Les: [↑Oh well the that makes it poss’ble (.)14 f:or us to go ↑we’re goin to ↓Ken:t this15 Saturda[y. t’see ]my moth]er16 Hal: [ Oh are ] you:? ]17 Les: °hhh[h Ah we ↑hav’n been back ↓ since befo:re=18 Hal: [( ) ↓Ye:h,19 Les: =uh:m the hurricane?20 Hal: No[:.21 Les: [.hhh An’[everybody tells us the trees are22 Hal: [No.23 Les: all flat still.

In her extended turn in lines 13 to 14, 17, 18, 21, and 23, Lesley refers first to the dancethat the speakers are discussing at the start of this extract, then her trip to see her mother,then the hurricane, and finally existing damage to the area. An approach that focusedonly on the referents of this turn might deem it to cover at least three different topics.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

2 Sacks (1992b, p. 352) suggested that the presence of a number of marked topicchanges in a conversation may indicate that it is a “lousy” conversation comparedwith one in which topics flow from one to another so that their introduction is notmarked. According to Sacks (1992b), disjunctive or marked topic transition—ofteninvolving entry into closing or conversational restart—are associated with “tricky”topics such as talk about matters that are controversial or embarrassing. Jefferson(1984) has shown that troubles tellings are frequently followed by disjunctive topictransitions. Further, Sacks (1992a, pp. 535–543) pointed out that it may often be ad-vantageous for a speaker to be able to introduce a matter as linked to the previous:The question regarding why the speaker has chosen to say that now is then automati-cally answered. In some sequential environments or in introducing certain topics,there may be good reasons for tying the new matter to the previous rather than intro-ducing it disjunctively.

3 In some transcripts “caref” is followed by a cutoff symbol. We have omitted the symbolhere, as it sounds to us as though it is said quickly but not cut off at the end.

4 See Beach (1993) for a further and similar use of the term pivot.

5 The following extract demonstrates that even without a clear change of topic, figurativesummaries may be used in a transition between which participant acts as main speakerand which as recipient:

[Holt:1989:1:4]

(Both Lesley and Angela are trying to move house. Lesley is recallingprospective buyers’ plans for her house. They then proceed to talk aboutAngela’s planned move. The “it” in line 22 refers to Angela’s house.)

1 Lesley: °hhhh and she seemed qui:te interested2 but they said sh- they said of course °hhh3 the gap between °hhh prices is not as °hhh4 great as they imagined and they’re[not sure5 Angela: [°no °6 Lesley: if they can afford to do all that7 (0.3)8 Lesley: .hhh so um she may get in touch again I don’t9 know.

10 Angela: ummm11 (0.4)12 Lesley: → °hhh >just have to keep our fingers cross[ed<13 Angela: [ye:s14 → ye:s it’s a long waiting game isn’t it?15 Lesley: yes it is16 Angela: °u[mm °17 Lesley: [yes18 (0.2)19 Lesley: °hhhh w- yes[ well ]


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

20 Angela: [°(yes)°]21 (0.9)22 Lesley: I sh- I should put it on the market soon then23 because you might have to wait some time ↑too24 [mightn’t you?]25 Angela: [( ) ]this is the trouble I mean you26 know it all depends (1.1) how the houses sell27 over there if we (0.6) get in in time or not

At the beginning of the extract, the speakers are discussing a visit by prospective buyersto Lesley’s house; at the end, they are talking about problems associated with Angela’spurchase of one of several recently built houses. The steps by which the focus of thetopic is shifted occur over a number of turns. First, Lesley uses the figurative expression“>just have to keep our fingers crossed<” (line 12) to summarize the preceding talkabout whether the visitors might be interested in buying her house. This is followed bytwo agreement tokens and another figurative phrase—“it’s a long waiting game isn’tit?”—produced by Angela (lines 13 and 14). Then, after several agreement tokens byboth speakers and a pause, Lesley develops the topic in a different direction by advisingAngela to put her house on the market quickly in case she too has to wait a long time fora buyer. This matter is explicitly tied to the figurative expression in that Lesley says thatAngela may have to “wait some time ↑too.” So, there is a transition from talk focusingon a specific incident involving prospective buyers’ visit to Lesley’s house to Angela’sattempts to sell her house and buy another.

Thus, although the talk before and after the figurative expressions could be regardedas loosely about the same topic, that is, buying and selling houses, there is a transitionboth in the focus (from the visit to Lesley’s house to Angela’s plans) and in participation(from Lesley to Angela acting as main speaker). This extract highlights the difficultiesinherent in the notions of topic and topic transition as outlined previously. Clearly, thereis a transition here from talk about one matter to another, but both are so closely relatedthat we might hesitate to call this a change in topic. There is also a transition in partici-pation, and this raises the issue that other factors cut across topic transition. Transitionsin participation may coincide with transitions in the matter under discussion but do notnecessarily do so. Also, transitions occur at the end of activity sequences (Schegloff,1990), which may coincide with a change of topic.

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conver-sation analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usages. Journal ofPragmatics, 19, 325–352.

Brown, G., & Yule. G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1984). Generating topic: The use of topic initial elicitors. In J. M.Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversationanalysis (pp. 167–190). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human Studies, 8,3–55.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1988–1989). Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on Lan-guage and Social Interaction, 22, 61–92.

Crow, B. K. (1983). Topic shifts in couples’ conversations. In R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.),Conversational coherence: Form structure, and strategy (pp.136–156). London: Sage.

Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1988). Complainable matters: The use of idiomatic expressions inmaking complaints. Social Problems, 35, 398–417.

Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1995). Idiomatic expressions and their role in the organization of topictransition in conversation. In M. Everaert, E-J. Van der Linden, A. Schenk, & R.Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms: Structural and psychological perspectives (pp. 117–132).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Drew, P., & Holt, E. (1998). Figures of speech: Figurative expressions and the managementof topic transition in conversation. Language in Society, 27, 495–522.

Fillmore, C., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammati-cal constructions: The case of “let alone.” Language, 64, 501–538.

Jefferson, G. (1984). On stepwise transition from talk about a trouble to inappropriatelynext-positioned matters. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of socialaction: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.191–222). Cambridge, England: Cam-bridge University Press.

Keenan, E. O., & Schieffelin, B. (1976). Topic as a discourse notion: A study of the conver-sation of children and adults. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subjects and topic (pp. 335–384.) NewYork: Academic.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue; talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical per-

spectives (Monograph). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Maynard, D. (1980). Placement of topic changes in conversation. Semiotica, 30, 263–290.Sacks, H. (1992a). Lectures on conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed., Vol. 1). Oxford, England:

Blackwell.Sacks, H. (1992b). Lectures on conversation (G. Jefferson, Ed., Vol. 2). Oxford, England:

Blackwell.Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organiza-

tion of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.Schank, R. (1977). Rules and topics in conversation. Cognitive Science, 1, 421–441.Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon

(Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–288). New York: Academic.Schegloff, E. A. (1990). On the organization of sequences as a source of “coherence” in

talk-in-interaction. In B. Dorval (Ed.), Conversational organization and its develop-ment (pp. 51–77). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7, 289–327.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Lou

ghbo

roug

h U

nive

rsity

], [

Paul

Dre

w]

at 2

2:54

26

Sept

embe

r 20

14

Figurative Pivots Holt & Drew

Documents

Transcript of Figurative Pivots Holt & Drew