{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030625, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013125, 'mean_word_length': 5.181467181467181, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Placement of topic changes in conversation

One commonsense notion, shared by professionals, is that the 'topic' in a conversation is what the conversation is 'about'. For example, Watson and Potter (1962: 251) state, 'Every episode of conversation has a focus of attention; it is talk about something'. As a consequence of this assumption, early work which has addressed topicality in conversation has almost invariably approached its investigation as a problem in content analysis. Recent work in conversational analysis suggests, however, that topicality is an achievement of conversationalists, something organized and made observable in patterned ways that can be described. Thus, attention is directed to the structure whereby topicality is produced in conversation. In other words, Sacks et al. (1974: 728) suggest that a speaker regularly exhibits understanding of prior talk in a current turn-at-talk. Furthermore, Schegloff and Sacks (1974: 243) argue that conversationalists 'fit' their current utterance to the utterance of the prior speaker. Topicality, then, is a matter not only of content, but is partly constituted in the procedures conversationalists utilize to display understanding and to achieve one turn's proper fit with a prior. Some of these procedures will be elaborated in the course of the following discussion as they bear on the main interest of the paper. Although conversational turns by and large exhibit understanding of prior utterances, there are places where a current utterance may not display a relationship to, or may not fit with, a prior one. A class of such