Transition-relevance place (TRP)

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Transition-relevance place (TRP)
Author(s):	Shimako Iwasaki (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6593-7203)
To cite:	Iwasaki, Shimako (2024). Transition-relevance place (TRP). In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/8G4JE

The notion of a transition-relevance place (TRP) was introduced by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) to explain how a current speaker and a next speaker coordinate turn-transitions in an orderly manner. A TRP coincides with the end of a turn-constructional unit (TCU) and identifies where transition to the next speaker may be possible. Sacks et al. (1974, p. 703) explained that “[t]he first possible completion of a first such [turn-constructional] unit constitutes an initial transition-relevance place. Transfer of speakership is coordinated by reference to such transition-relevance places.”

TRPs facilitate turn allocation due to the contributions of both speaker and recipient: speakers project the occurrence of TRPs in advance and recipients monitor the trajectory of an unfolding turn for its possible completion (and thus for a TRP). That is, the projectability of a TCU enables participants to act based on predictions of where completion may occur and thus where next actions and next speakers may become relevant.

The following example illustrates how a potential next speaker orients to the relevance of turn transition at possible completion points. In this example, possible TRPs recur discretely during a multi-unit turn. Point [*1] in line 1 is grammatically a possible TRP, which Janet orients to by attempting to take the next turn but defers to Penny’s turn continuation. This same thing happens again at point [*2]: Janet begins a turn at a point of grammatical completion, but again defers to Penny’s turn continuation. At point [*3] Penny’s turn reaches a TRP both grammatically and intonationally, after which Janet takes the next turn in line 5. Silence and pauses can assist with recognition of TRPs. In lines 1-2 of this example there are no silences or pauses but Janet is projecting where the TRP may occur based on syntactic structures. Even though transition may be relevant, it is only achieved, in this case, when intonation and grammar are combined to mark the location where Penny reaches turn completion and yields the floor to Janet.

(1) (Sacks et al. 1974: 721)

01  Penny:   An‘ the fact is I- is- I jus‘ thought it was so kind of stupid *1
02           [I didn‘ even say anything *2 [when I came ho:me. *3
03  Janet:   [Y-                           [Eh-
04           (0.3)
05  Janet:   Well Estelle jus‘ call ‘n...

This example also shows how the current speaker negotiates the relevance of speaker transition at TRPs. When speakers produce multi-unit turns (i.e., a turn that is constituted with more than one TCU), they display an orientation to the relevance of speaker changes at possible completion points of TCUs. In this example Penny minimizes breaks at the first two possible transition points. In line 3 Janet’s aborted attempts to take a turn also overlap with the current speaker. If Janet had started the turn production at a point that is not near TRPs, then this action would have been considered as an interruption (Schegloff 1987). Janet’s conduct points to the general orientation to minimizing gaps and overlaps, while also showing how terminal overlaps are common as interlocutors project TRPs within unfolding turns.

Many researchers have investigated how conversationalists recognize possible turn completion (and thus TRPs) for the management of smooth and rapid turn-transitions (e.g., Auer 2005; de Ruiter et al. 2006; Ford & Thompson 1996; Kendrick et al. 2023; Tanaka 2000). Furthermore, Ford and Thompson (1996) expanded on the notion of a TRP by introducing the “complex TRP,” which they described as a convergence of syntax, prosody, and pragmatic completion that marks where speaker changes could occur. Subsequent studies have examined how the coordination of turn transitions involves not only linguistic resources but also visual-gestural ones. For example, gestures and gaze direction (e.g., Mondada 2006, 2007; Kendrick et al. 2023) can assist in turn-taking, and bodily-visual displays may be produced at turn completion points and convey interlocutor’s stance (Ford et al. 2012).

Although transition to a next speaker can be relevant at a TRP, it does not necessarily have to occur. A change of speakership becomes a salient possibility that may or may not be realized at any particular TRP. At any TRP, the following turn-taking rules apply in this order: (a) the current speaker stops and creates a space for the selected next speaker to enter (next speaker selection); (b) if the speaker does not select a next speaker, then any other interlocutor may self-select to take a next turn; (c) if no other party self-selects, then the current speaker may continue their turn, thereby maintaining the floor (Sacks et al. 1974: 704).

The projectable occurrence of TRPs allows recipients to smoothly take a next turn, but it also provides the possibility for the speaker to circumvent the TRP. Speakers can strategically shape the recognizability of TRPs to influence turn-transition. This may be done through using rush-throughs (Schegloff 1982: 76) (i.e., a current speaker’s temporal device to quickly get past a TCU’s possible completion point by speeding up the pace of talk), abrupt-joins (Local & Walker 2004) (i.e., quickly adding another TCU to the speaker’s turn, including allowing speakers to effect a disjunctive shift), and various types of pivots (Schegloff 1979; Clayman & Raymond 2015) (i.e., an item that can be seen as both the end of one TCU and the beginning of the next TCU).

Additional Related Entries:

• Gap
• Incipient talk
• Micropause
• Pause
• Social action
• Turn-constructional unit (TCU)
• Turn-taking

Cited References:

Auer, P. (2005). Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7-36.

Clayman, S. E. (2013). Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 150–166). Wiley-Blackwell.

Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W. (2015). Modular pivots: A resource for extending turns at talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 388-405.

de Ruiter, J. P, Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82(3), 515-535.

Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134-184). Cambridge University Press.

Ford, C. E., Thompson, S. A., & Drake, V. (2012). Bodily-visual practices and turn continuation. Discourse Processes, 49, 192-212.

Kendrick, K., Holler, J., & Levinson, S. C. (2023). Turn-taking in human face-to-face interaction is multimodal: gaze direction and manual gestures aid the coordination of turn transitions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 378, 20210473.

Local, J. K., & Walker. G. (2004). Abrupt-joins as a resource for the production of multi-unit, multi-action turns. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(8), 1375–1403.

Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 117-129.

Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speaker. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225.

Sacks, H. Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261-286). Academic Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘un huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics, Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71-93). Georgetown University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation’s turn-taking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organization (pp. 70-85). Multilingual Matters.

Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P, Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., de Ruiter, J. P., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10587-10592.

Additional References:

Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.

de Vos, Connie, Torreira, F., & Levinson, S. (2015). Turn-taking in signed conversations: Coordinating stroke-to-stroke turn boundaries. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 268.

Ford, C. E. (2004). Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6(1), 27–52.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Practices in the Construction of Turns: the ‘TCU’ revisited. Pragmatics, 6(3), 427-454.

Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A., & Thompson, S. A. (2002). Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The language of turn and sequence (pp. 14–38). Oxford University Press.

Girard-Groeber, S. (2015). The management of turn transition in signed interaction through the lens of overlap. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 741.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.

Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46(2), 226-246.

Iwasaki, S. (2011). The multimodal mechanics of collaborative unit construction in Japanese conversation. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 106-120). Cambridge University Press.

Iwasaki, S. (2013). Emerging units and emergent forms of participation within a unit in Japanese interaction: Local organization at a finer level of granularity. In B. Szczepek Reed, & G. Raymond (Eds), Units of talk – Units of action (pp. 243-275). John Benjamins.

Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and ‘silence’: Notes on phonetic and conversational structure. Human Studies 9, 185-204.

Lerner, G. H. (2013). On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: A turn-constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion. In J. Sidnell, M. Hayashi, & G. Raymond (Eds.), Conversational repair and human understanding (pp. 95-134). Cambridge University Press.

Liddicoat, A. (2004). The projectability of turn constructional units and the role of prediction in listening. Discourse Studies, 6(4), 449-469.

Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn-projection in Japanese talk in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 1-38.