Opening Up Closings¶
SCHEGLOFF, E. A., & SACKS, H. (1973). Opening Up Closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327.
Cited by¶
4 citations across 4 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Adjacency Pair
- Conversation analysis. Question/answer, greeting/greeting, offer/accept-or-decline, complaint/apology — the origin, where the preference asymmetry is documented empirically: accepts are short and immediate, declines delayed, hedged, and accounted for.
This sourceFoundational conversation-analysis treatment of adjacency pairs and conditional relevance — the noticeable absence of a second-pair-part; preference organization (accepts immediate, declines delayed/hedged/accounted) is documented in the CA tradition (see also Pomerantz 1984).
- Conversation analysis. Question/answer, greeting/greeting, offer/accept-or-decline, complaint/apology — the origin, where the preference asymmetry is documented empirically: accepts are short and immediate, declines delayed, hedged, and accounted for.
- Setup–Resolution Pair
- A setup–resolution pair is an ordered two-role relation in which an initiating element opens a demand of a specified type and a second, causally linked element discharges it, so that the two together — and neither alone — constitute one completed unit.
This sourceGives the classic formulation of the adjacency pair - two-utterance length, relative ordering of parts, and a first part whose pair type discriminates among admissible second parts - so that two elements form a unit only when the first types the second rather than merely preceding it.
- A setup–resolution pair is an ordered two-role relation in which an initiating element opens a demand of a specified type and a second, causally linked element discharges it, so that the two together — and neither alone — constitute one completed unit.
Domain-specific¶
- Period Structure
- That structure genuinely recurs, as real co-instances rather than loose resemblances, in call-and-response (music, folk, liturgy, blues), conversation-analysis adjacency pairs (Sacks and Schegloff's question–answer, greeting–greeting)
This sourceSchegloff and Sacks's conversation-analytic study of how participants manage closings in conversation — the paper in which adjacency pairs are named.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
“The paper presents some of the ways that have been developed for dealing with closings in conversation.”
- That structure genuinely recurs, as real co-instances rather than loose resemblances, in call-and-response (music, folk, liturgy, blues), conversation-analysis adjacency pairs (Sacks and Schegloff's question–answer, greeting–greeting)
- Request-Response
- The structural shape — role asymmetry, causal pairing, a return path, one-shot scope — genuinely recurs across substrates: a legal motion answered by a ruling, a presenting complaint answered by an assessment-and-plan, a support ticket answered by a reply, a prayer or oracle consultation answered by a response, and the question-answer adjacency pairs of conversation analysis (Schegloff and Sacks).
This sourceThe conversation-analysis paper developing the adjacency pair - two utterances by different speakers, ordered so that a first pair part makes a particular type of second relevant - which is the last item in this list and the only one attributed here by name.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The structural shape — role asymmetry, causal pairing, a return path, one-shot scope — genuinely recurs across substrates: a legal motion answered by a ruling, a presenting complaint answered by an assessment-and-plan, a support ticket answered by a reply, a prayer or oracle consultation answered by a response, and the question-answer adjacency pairs of conversation analysis (Schegloff and Sacks).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 4 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:101f35ef358b · see in the full table