Severinson Eklundh and Linell (1983) asked whether a minimal form of communicative interaction exists and, if so, how many moves it would require. In conversation analysis, the response to these questions has traditionally been that such a form exists and that it takes the form of a pair of adjacent utterances consisting of a first pair part (e.g., a greeting or a question) and a second pair part (e.g., a greeting in return or an answer to the question). Severinson Eklundh and Linell acknowledged that communicative exchanges could take the form of two-part sequences, but they argued that this format is relatively limited in scope. Instead, they proposed that the basic format for most communicative interactions is a three-part sequence and that this structure should not be reduced to a base pair with a sequence closing third as an expansion of the pair. This issue has been the subject of ongoing debate over the last four decades. In this article, we discuss how conversation analysis and extended dialogism have addressed the idea of a minimal form of communicative interaction. We review different approaches and how they overlap and diverge, and we make conceptual distinctions to account for their differences.

中文翻译：

---

对话分析、对话和最小交流单元的案例

Severinson Eklundh 和 Linell（1983）询问是否存在最小形式的交流互动，如果存在，需要多少次移动。在对话分析中，对这些问题的回答传统上是这样的形式存在，并且它采用一对相邻话语的形式，该对相邻话语由第一对部分（例如问候语或问题）和第二对部分（例如，问候或问题）组成。例如，回敬问候或回答问题）。 Severinson Eklundh 和 Linell 承认交流交流可以采用两部分序列的形式，但他们认为这种格式的范围相对有限。相反，他们提出大多数交流互动的基本格式是由三部分组成的序列，并且这种结构不应简化为一个碱基对，并以第三个序列结尾作为该对的扩展。这个问题在过去四十年里一直是争论的焦点。在本文中，我们讨论对话分析和扩展对话如何解决最小形式的交流互动的想法。我们回顾不同的方法以及它们如何重叠和分歧，并进行概念上的区分以解释它们的差异。