Adjacency pairs
Adjacency pairs are fundamental sequential structures in conversation analysis, defined as units consisting of two utterances produced successively by different speakers, where the first utterance (first pair part, or FPP) creates a conditional relevance for a specific type of second utterance (second pair part, or SPP) in the immediately following turn.[1] Introduced by sociologists Emanuel A. Schegloff and Harvey Sacks in their 1973 analysis of conversational closings, these pairs represent the smallest complete sequence in talk-in-interaction, enforcing expectations for reciprocity and coherence in everyday discourse.[1] The production of an FPP, such as a question or greeting, positions the recipient to deliver an SPP—like an answer or return greeting—demonstrating mutual understanding or prompting repair if absent.[1] Key characteristics of adjacency pairs include their adjacency (no intervening talk), speaker alternation, fixed ordering (FPP precedes SPP), and discriminative relation, whereby the type of FPP selects the appropriate SPP form.[1] Common examples encompass question-answer (e.g., "What time is it?" followed by "Three o'clock"), greeting-greeting (e.g., "Hello" reciprocated with "Hi"), summons-answer (e.g., a ring or "Hey" met with "What?"), offer-acceptance/declination, request-grant/denial, and apology-minimization (e.g., "Sorry" followed by "That's okay").[2] These pairs operate as building blocks for larger conversational organizations, including openings, closings, and topic shifts, while deviations—such as non-answers or insertions—can highlight interactional trouble or expansions like pre-sequences (e.g., a preliminary "Can I ask you something?" before a question).[2] In conversation analysis, adjacency pairs underscore the methodical and accountable nature of social interaction, revealing how participants collaboratively manage turns and actions without explicit rules.[2] Their study has extended to diverse contexts, including institutional settings like classrooms and therapy sessions, where they facilitate or constrain collaborative activities.[2] By displaying relevance and expectation, adjacency pairs ensure that conversations progress systematically, with the absence of an expected SPP often treated as noticeable and repairable.[1]Definition and Fundamentals
Core Definition
Adjacency pairs represent a core unit of organization in everyday conversation, defined as paired sequences of two utterances produced by different speakers, where the first utterance—termed the first pair part (FPP)—establishes an expectation for a particular type of second utterance, known as the second pair part (SPP), such as a question-answer or offer-acceptance structure. These pairs are characterized by their minimal length of two utterances, with each component belonging to a specific, related pair type that ensures functional interdependence between them. The concept of adjacency emphasizes the sequential immediacy of these components, wherein the SPP is ideally positioned directly following the FPP within the ongoing turn-taking framework of interaction, without intervening material from other speakers. This sequential placement differentiates adjacency pairs from other conversational phenomena, such as monologues, which consist of extended, unpaired contributions by a single speaker, or successive turns that lack any projected relational tie. Central to adjacency pairs is the principle of conditional relevance, under which the FPP generates a normative expectation for the SPP, making its absence or replacement by an alternative response sequentially deviant and thus requiring explanation or repair in the interaction. This mechanism underscores how adjacency pairs contribute to the orderly progression of talk, a foundational insight from the field of conversation analysis.Key Characteristics
Adjacency pairs are defined by their paired action format, in which a first pair part (FPP) initiates a recognizable action that projects and requires a corresponding second pair part (SPP) to complete the sequence. This format ensures that the SPP is not merely any response but one that is specifically fitted to the FPP, such as an answer to a question or acceptance to an offer, thereby organizing turn-taking and action progression in interaction.[3] A key feature of many adjacency pairs is preference organization, which systematically favors certain responses over others to promote alignment and social cohesion. Preferred responses, which support the FPP's trajectory (e.g., agreement following a suggestion), are delivered promptly, directly, and without qualifiers, reflecting institutional norms of affiliation in talk. Dispreferred responses, conversely, are structurally disfavored and typically marked by delays, prefaces, hedges, or accounts to mitigate potential conflict, as seen in rejections or disagreements.[4] Adjacency pairs also demonstrate sequential implicativeness through the conditional relevance of the SPP, whereby the FPP renders a particular response type expectable and its absence noticeable, thereby implicating the direction of subsequent talk. This property links individual pairs into broader conversational trajectories, ensuring accountability and coherence across sequences.[5] When deviations occur, such as an unexpected or absent SPP, repair mechanisms come into play to restore intersubjectivity. These include self-initiated repairs by the FPP speaker (e.g., reformulating the initiation) or other-initiated repairs by the recipient (e.g., requesting clarification), with a strong preference for self-repair to minimize disruption. Such repairs treat the pair's normative structure as a resource for identifying and correcting troubles in speaking, hearing, or understanding.[6] Although adjacency—the contiguous placement of FPP and SPP—represents the canonical form, it functions as an ideal rather than a strict requirement; the pair remains intact and recognizable even with brief insertions or expansions, provided the SPP demonstrably responds to the FPP. This flexibility accommodates the practical demands of real-time interaction while preserving the pair's sequential integrity.[5]Types and Examples
Common Pair Types
Adjacency pairs in conversation analysis are typically organized into specific types, each characterized by a first pair part (FPP) that projects a particular second pair part (SPP) through conditional relevance.[3] Common types include question-answer, greeting-greeting, offer-acceptance/rejection, request-compliance/denial, apology-forgiveness, summons-answer, and assessment-agreement pairs.[7] These types form the basic building blocks of sequential organization in talk-in-interaction, with responses often shaped by preference organization, where preferred SPPs align with social expectations while dispreferred ones introduce contrasts.[8] Question-answer pairs represent one of the most basic adjacency pair structures, in which the FPP takes the form of an interrogative seeking information or clarification, and the SPP delivers the expected informational response to fulfill the query.[3] This type is foundational to information exchange in conversations, ensuring relevance between the initiating utterance and its reply.[9] Greeting-greeting pairs function as mutual acknowledgments at the openings of interactions, with the FPP initiating social recognition through a salutation and the SPP reciprocating to establish rapport.[3] Such pairs are essential for transitioning into extended discourse while signaling availability for engagement.[10] Offer-acceptance/rejection pairs involve an FPP in which a speaker proposes something of value, such as an item or opportunity, prompting an SPP that either accepts the proposal or rejects it, often with accountability for the decision.[7] This structure highlights the interpersonal dynamics of generosity and response obligations in social exchanges.[8] Request-compliance/denial pairs occur when the FPP seeks a specific action or favor from the recipient, who then provides an SPP either complying with the request or denying it, thereby managing relational expectations.[3] These pairs are central to directive sequences, where the SPP's alignment or resistance affects ongoing interactional trajectories.[9] Apology-forgiveness pairs feature an FPP expressing regret for a prior action or omission, followed by an SPP that accepts the apology, offers forgiveness, or minimizes the offense to restore social equilibrium.[11] This type underscores the role of adjacency pairs in repairing relational disruptions through accountable responses.[12] Summons-answer pairs begin with an FPP designed to gain the recipient's attention, such as a vocative or non-verbal cue, eliciting an SPP that acknowledges the call and opens the floor for further talk.[3] Originating from early work on conversational openings, this type ensures attentional alignment before substantive exchanges.[8] Assessment-agreement pairs consist of an FPP in which a speaker evaluates a state of affairs or object, prompting an SPP that agrees with the assessment or offers a differing one, thereby negotiating shared perspectives.[13] These pairs are key to aligning evaluations in interaction, with agreement often serving as the preferred response to maintain solidarity.[8]Illustrative Examples
Adjacency pairs manifest in everyday discourse through paired actions where the first pair part (FPP) creates a normative expectation for a specific second pair part (SPP), ensuring sequential organization in interaction.[14] These pairs are conditionally relevant, meaning the absence or deviation from the expected SPP can prompt accountability or repair. Illustrative examples from natural conversations highlight this linkage, often drawn from recorded interactions analyzed in conversation analysis. A quintessential question-answer adjacency pair appears in queries seeking information, where the FPP question directly constrains the SPP to provide the requested detail. Consider this exchange from a casual inquiry about time: A: Do you know what time it is?B: Four o'clock.[15] Here, the interrogative FPP by A makes an informative SPP conditionally relevant, and B's immediate response fulfills this expectation without deviation, advancing the conversation's progressivity.[14] Such pairs are fundamental to information exchange, as the answer's relevance is tied solely to the question posed. Greetings form another basic adjacency pair, typically reciprocal and serving to open interactions in casual encounters. A simple example is: A: Hi!
B: Hello The FPP greeting initiates mutual recognition, and the SPP greeting reciprocates it, confirming social alignment; deviations like silence would mark the absence as noticeable and potentially rude.[10] This pair's adjacency underscores its role in establishing rapport efficiently. Offer-rejection pairs illustrate preference organization, where the preferred SPP is acceptance (prompt and direct) and rejection is dispreferred (often delayed, mitigated with accounts or prefaces to soften the impact). A transcribed example from a neighborly interaction shows this: B: Uh if you'd care to come over and visit a little while this morning I'll give you a cup of coffee.
A: hehh Well that's awfully sweet of you, I don't think I can make it this morning .hh uhm I'm running an ad in the paper and – and uh I have to stay near the phone.
B: Well all right
A: And- uh
B: Well sometime when you are free to give me a call because I'm not always home.[16] The FPP offer by B expects acceptance, but A's dispreferred rejection is delayed with laughter (hehh), appreciation ("that's awfully sweet"), hesitation markers (.hh, uhm), and an account (staying near the phone), minimizing face-threat; B then pursues a future alternative, linking the parts sequentially.[16] This deviation from immediate adjacency highlights how dispreferred responses expand the pair to maintain affiliation.[14] In service interactions, request-compliance pairs demonstrate compliance as the preferred SPP to requests, facilitating cooperative action. An example from a dining context is: A: Can I have some sugar?
B: Sure.[17] The FPP request by A, phrased politely as a question, elicits B's compliant SPP, which is straightforward and adjacent, completing the pair without expansion; non-compliance would require justification to avoid conflict.[17] This linkage ensures efficient task accomplishment in routine settings.[14]
Variations and Expansions
Insertions and Side Sequences
Insertions, often referred to as insert expansions in conversation analysis, consist of sequences of talk that intervene between the first pair part (FPP) and the second pair part (SPP) of an adjacency pair, temporarily suspending the conditional relevance of the SPP until the inserted material is resolved.[18] These insertions are typically constructed as their own adjacency pairs and are initiated by the prospective recipient of the SPP to handle matters such as seeking clarification or initiating repair before delivering the expected response.[18] By design, insert expansions preserve the overall coherence of the interaction, as the original FPP's relevance remains in force, and the conversation systematically returns to the base adjacency pair once the insertion concludes.[18] A prominent type of insertion involves clarification requests, where the recipient interrupts to resolve ambiguity in the FPP prior to responding. For instance, in the following transcript excerpt:A: Can you do it?Here, B's "What?" and "Now?" form insert sequences that delay the refusal (SPP) while clarifying the request, allowing the interaction to resume coherently with the original pair's completion.[17] Such insertions often mitigate potential dispreferred responses, like rejections, by addressing comprehension issues first, thereby upholding the normative expectation of sequential implicativeness without derailing the main sequence.[18] Side sequences, a related concept, function as parenthetical asides or brief diversions embedded within the adjacency pair framework, permitting off-topic remarks or elaborations that postpone but do not abandon the primary exchange.[8] These sequences, as described by Jefferson, enable participants to insert commentary—such as questions about presuppositions—while ensuring a return to the original trajectory, thus sustaining conditional relevance through structured resumption.[19] For example:
B: What?
A: Can you take care of it?
B: Now?
A: If that’s all right.
B: Well, I mean, no, I’m afraid not.
Bob: What about my face?In this case, Gage's clarification request acts as a side sequence, briefly suspending Bob's question before Joe provides the aligned response, demonstrating how such elements embed without fracturing the pair's coherence.[17] Pre-sequences, another form of expansion akin to insertions in their preparatory role, precede the main FPP as standalone adjacency pairs to establish conditions for the forthcoming base sequence.[20] They are particularly common for type-specific actions like requests or invitations, probing the recipient's availability or stance to facilitate a smoother progression to the primary pair. An illustrative pre-sequence might involve:
Gage: What?
Bob: My face! Nobody’s doing anything.
Joe: Oh, I’ll help you apply the lotion.
A: Are you busy tonight?This preliminary exchange sets up the invitation (FPP), allowing B to anticipate and respond appropriately, thereby maintaining interactional coherence by aligning expectations before the core adjacency pair unfolds.[20] Overall, these insertions and side sequences exemplify the flexible yet orderly nature of adjacency pairs, where temporary suspensions enhance mutual understanding without violating the underlying conditional relevance.[18]
B: No, why?
A: Want to grab dinner?