Sacks on the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation: An Overview
In the field of conversation analysis, one influential scholar whose work has greatly informed our understanding of how conversation works is Harvey Sacks. Sacks was interested in the mechanisms that allow people to maintain coherence and order in conversation, despite the many contingencies that may arise. Two of the key principles that Sacks identified as being important for successful turn-taking and sequence organization are the preferences for agreement and contiguity.
The preference for agreement refers to the tendency of conversational participants to orient themselves towards the same or similar topics, actions, and attitudes. This preference is evident in how speakers often try to build on what others have said, or to align themselves with the perspectives of their interlocutors. For example, if one speaker says, “I really enjoyed that movie,” the other might respond with agreement or elaboration, rather than introducing a completely different topic.
The preference for contiguity, on the other hand, refers to the tendency of participants to organize sequences of talk in a linear, contiguous fashion. This preference is evident in the ways that speakers often take turns in a back-and-forth fashion, rather than interrupting or abruptly changing the topic. For example, if one speaker finishes a sentence, the other usually waits for a pause before beginning their own utterance.
While these preferences for agreement and contiguity are often mutually reinforcing, they can also come into conflict, especially when participants have different goals, knowledge, or emotional states. One of the most interesting aspects of Sacks` work is how he identified the many ways in which conversational participants use various methods to achieve alignment and continuity, or to signal when these are being disrupted.
For example, participants use “repair” strategies to correct misunderstandings or to clarify ambiguous turns. They use “pre-sequences” to prepare the ground for upcoming talk, or to gauge the other`s interest or knowledge. They use “upgraders” and “downgraders” to signal the degree of commitment or certainty they have about what they are saying. And they use various forms of “jockeying” to assert their rights to speak, or to manage the flow of turns.
Overall, Sacks` work on the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation has greatly enriched our understanding of how people make sense of each other in talk. By identifying the ways in which participants use various strategies to maintain coherence and order, Sacks has highlighted the intricate, sophisticated nature of human interaction, and the many mechanisms that allow us to communicate effectively. As a copy editor with experience in SEO, I hope this article has provided a useful overview of Sacks` contribution to the field of conversational analysis.