The concept of ‘cut-offs’ almost exclusively been dealt with as a form of repair (Jaspersen 1998, Schegloff 1977) where we find ‘a compression or foreshortening of words (or syllables) in ongoing talk’ in order to attend to a trouble source (Local &; Walker. 2004. 1394). What the literature lacks, however, is an observation of such forms that do not attempt to’ repair’ any notion of linguistic trouble. Such instances of these ‘cut-offs’ are evident in the language, and also appear to share common contextual and sequential properties. When we claim that something is an instance of repair we mean that speakers are adhering to ‘problems in speaking, hearing and understanding’ within the conversation (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks: 1977: 362). Importantly, however, it must be acknowledged that repair can appear without an overtly observable ‘error’. (Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks: 1977: 362). Laasko and Sorjonen claim that ‘cutting off’ is a form of self-repair that features within an ongoing turn-constructional unit and as a result ‘the utterance is heard as prosodically discontinuous and incomplete’(2010). In most cases speakers cut off a word in progress, although alternatively the speaker may cut off after the completion of a word.
One of the ways we find non-repair cut offs are those that acknowledge ‘topic-external factors’. These include disjunctional observations or subjects that are disconnected from the topic and most often linked to contextual issues or topic external thoughts. For example, they feature ‘now’ issues; where the focus is shifted to the context of the conversation itself like whether the hearer is free to talk, analysis of one’s own speech or the bringing up of a topic or subject that is detached from the current direction of speech. As we will observe, all of these ‘disjunctions’ eventually return to the original interrupted topic or sequential pattern through use of repeated features.
A fairly explicit example of non-repair cut-offs is where the speaker halts the progressivity of their speech, most often mid-word, to ask or observe the hearer’s availability with regards to the conversation:

1) NB. VII. Power Tools
Edn: I [know en y[er do] in real good ar[ntche.]
Mar: [.t.hhh [E : n] [I : ' ]m jis:so delighted I cn do it E[dna cz] if:I didn'do it we'd haft[uh hire it] do:ne,
Edn: [.hhhhh] [Wih y'know] 3:00
Edn: i-yihknow it's funny uh:: uh Bud played et San Mar-av yih gotta minute?=
Mar: =Su:[:re.] ˚Mm h m,]
Edn: [I'm ] not g'nna] take [too lon]g. [.hhhhh]
Mar: [.hhhhhh] No u[m wait] 'n on the ulectrician 'e hasn' been here e-all en .hhh he w'spoze t'be here et ei:ght uh'clock this ˚mornin[g
Edn: [Oh: god.I u:I k- I give uh- you know we gotta ch- we've gotta cra:ck in ar: beautiful new basin I to:ld [juh,]
Mar: [Oh::]:=
Mar: =I kno::[w,
Edn: [(Bill) j'st gotta come'n putta new one the l-guy:'s gotta come en check it'n see::'v iv it's authennic thet it cra::cked'n all this bit yihknow,=
Mar: =Ye:::::uh,
Edn: .hhh B't anyway we played golf et San or Bud played et San
Ma:rcus so I went down with'im yihknow that's back'v Ensk- 3:30
(.)

Edna starts-up a new topic; prefacing the story with ‘yihknow it’s funny uh::’ followed by the starting contextual line of the story ‘Bud played at San Mar-‘. It is within the nucleus of this the first syllable of ‘Marcus’ that she abruptly cuts-off to ask Emma’s availability and whether she ‘has a minute’.
The topic change exampled is particularly overt; its formation created by a very clear story preface which as a result acts as a signal for Edna to examine and observe the position and status of her hearer. The topic change signals an appropriate time to check the availability status of the hearer, not just for the duration of the story, but also for the duration of the entire conversation. This overt story prefacing is the first clear topic shift in the conversation; and thus the first signal, or appropriate point for Edna (the caller) to actually ask her listener whether she is free to talk. Asking for the availability of the person you have called most typically is found in the opening stages of conversation (include Sacks quote /example here) However this particular conversation opening lacked such typical conversation-opening conventions:
2)

Mar: Hello:,
Edn: Hello Margy?
Mar: Ye:[s,
Edn: [.hhhh We do pai:::nting, a:nti[qui::ng,=
Mar: [.hh
Mar: =I(h)s tha:t right.=
Edn: =Ehhhh[hhhhhhhh[#hh]#hh (1)
Mar: [hmh-hmh-[hmh]

Despite the conventional interchange of ‘hellos’ in lines 1 and 2, and confirmation of speaker in 3, Edna goes directly into a joke that Margy responds to and immedietly plays along with as a result of intersubjectivity. This joke then shifts into the topic of which the joke derived from almost seamlessly. i.e. without over topic-shift elicitors or indications (change). This almost seamless transition from joke to the topic of which the joke was formed, means that there are no overt topic prefaces, and thus no relevant positions or signals for Edna to ask for Emma’s availability. Therefore, with the clear story-prefacing found in 1) it acts as a marker or signal for Edna to do so.
The intention of asking whether the speaker is free to talk is a conversation convention in which the caller uses to avoid appearing rude of invasive. It thus appears most appropriate at both the start of the conversation, but also the start of a topic or story, for it would seem somewhat redundant to ask mid-way through its progression. Asking this question mid-topic or story not only seems a little inapt, but also would disrupt the fluidity of the story which is dispreferred. Edna may very well have intended to use it at the start of the conversation, however the topic initial turn at the start avoided such a pre-topic position in which this question could appropriately have been asked. Therefore at the next overt topic shift that Edna forms, the question regarding availability is asked. After asking for the status of Margy’s availability, the story is momentarily abandoned; the topic shifting towards the fact that Margy is waiting for the electrician, to which Edna adds to by including information about also waiting for something to be fixed at home, before finally returning to the original story of Bud playing golf in San Marcus. This is resolved by a discourse marker-initial turn ‘but anyway’, followed by, after some repair, recycling the original story preface; ‘Bud played et San’, the story continued with no issue or problems.
What this instance seems to suggest is that particularly overt topic-shifting or story prefacing turns act as almost a signal for taking the opportunity to adhere to the status of the other speaker in a contextual and topic-disconnected manner. Adhering to the status of the other speaker also brings their perception of yourself, and the language you use (change this): 2) Holt. May.88.1.5
Rob: Well and the other thing I wz disgusted b I'm sorry you're getting'n earful'v this you couldn't'v: phoned't a better ti:me,hheh he[h
Les: [.hh Oh that's alri:ght,
Rob: Well the other thing I've (.) found very strange is there weren't any dictionaries in the classroom
Les: .t.k.hhh[h

Again an overt topic change is observable; similarly with a discourse-marker initial turn; it is with ‘the other thing I was disgusted by’ is a topic-shifting preface. In this case, we must be tentative with our use of ‘topic’; for in this instance the new direction is an extension of the previous current topic. Despite this, it is clear that there will be a movement in what is being focused on. The cause of the cut-off here is formed by a combination of two observable factors. Firstly, and predominantly, it is the overt, clear topic shift that features at the start of the turn. Secondly it is the sense of negativity found in the topic-shift preface. The observation of possible perception her own speech is most probably formed by an interplay of the two. Firstly evident negativity causes Rob to comment on her own speech. It is clearly observable of her awareness of her language is partly formed by her use of the particularly strong form ‘disgusted’. We can observe that she is particularly aware of this form through her repair and replacement of it with the somewhat euphemistic alternative ‘found very strange’ later in the conversation. It is clear then that Rob realises her negativity through her own language, and particularly the forms that she uses. This negative language is emphasised by the conjunction ‘and’ towards the beginning of the turn suggesting that her disgust is not singular but quite repetitive. Her realisation of her negative perception prompts her to cut-off ‘by’ in her first turn, and comment on her own language. She makes a joke through the form ‘you couldn’t have phoned at a better time’.
Importantly it is with confirmation on Leslie’s part that her repeated negative observations are ‘alright’ that Rob continues her cut-off turn with recycled speech ‘well the other thing I’ve found’ plus the repaired ‘disgusted’ form.. It therefore appears important that Robbie checks the status of her hearer before the topic has fully undergone. This provides further evidence that overt topic or sequential shifting prefaces form as a both a signal and appropriate position for which to conduct a check the status of the hearer. In this case Robbie affirms that Leslie is not affected by these opinions, and upon confirmation that there is no issue, continues the cut-off turn. It seems important for speakers to conduct this analysis before embarking on a topic shift or story for its analysis would effect the fluidity and structure of the story of topic turn. The non-progressive, disjunctive statements or analysis is therefore preferably done before a story of topic is embarked upon.

Rob: [Right then Leslioh wh't sh'I do about the books.=hang onto them? (.)
Les: .hh Oh hang onto them.'n then when: uh I: am .hhh if hhanybody wants a photograph which they may not no:w .hh[h But if they do: I:'ll uh I'll have them back=
Rob: [Mm:
Les: =the:n=
Rob: =Righto an' we'll do it all together th[en.
Les: [Lovely.=
Rob: =O:k[ay. That's] all]then B[ye:
Les: [ O k a y ]then] [Bye bye,

A closing down of conversation can be seen in a similar light to topic-shift; they are both, in sense, shifts away from the current topic. We see here again an overt attempt for this; ‘Right then Lesli’ – Upon using such an overt topic shifting tool, it appears that it is a signal for Rob to consider off-topic information and is a appropriate position for this to be carried about. With the use of closing ‘right then’ it is a concluding statement that signals the end of the conversation. As it overtly linguistically signals the nearing of the end of the conversation, Leslie quickly realises that there is more information for which to ask Leslie. She therefore interrupts her own her own turn, for there are only a handful of turns left in the conversation; each in the closing stages and thus progressively moving towards the end of the conversation. It is therefore appropriate for Leslie to ask this information now and instantly, for any later and there would be no such opportunity. It therefore appears that the overt closing statement creates an opportunity to think outside of the current topic and to include any extra information that is required. Not only does it allow an opportunity to think outside of the topic, but also to display it, for as we said earlier, display of disjunctions within stories or topics effect the conversational flow and direction. These examples therefore conclude that seem to be markers and appropriate positions within the sequencing of conversation that firstly bring up disjunctional topics but also are the most appropriate place for these to be expressed. This is because firstly they are at the start of a topic and thus expression of them does not affect the flow and sequencing of the topic or story. But also secondly these are realised as cut-offs so that they remain away from a transition relevance place. This is important because, if the speech is not cut-off then a Transition Relevance place would appear and thus create the potential of the other person starting up. Once (and if) the other participant has ‘started up’ in this section’ then it is no longer pre-topic and thus causes the disruptance to topic flow we stated earlier. The observations of cut-offs in the data are important in representing cut-offs as not consistently a product of self-repair; for the turns that come after them are not to solve any trouble that has already been uttered; but to acknowledge and attend to extra-linguistic issues i.e. the status of the speaker or other disjunctive information..