Turn allocation

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Turn allocation
Author(s):	Rasmus Persson (Uppsala University, Sweden) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7253-9636)
To cite:	Person, Rasmus. (2023). Turn allocation. 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: []

Turn allocation is one component of the turn-taking system, the other being the turn-constructional component (Sacks, et al. 1974). The turn-allocational component refers to the coordinated ways in which speakership is transferred among participants at transition-relevance places (TRPs). The turn-constructional component, on the other hand, dictates where in the stream of talk such transition-relevance places arise, that is, at which points a possibly complete turn-constructional unit (TCU) has formed. This typically corresponds to places where possible syntactic completion (e.g., of phrases, clauses, or sentences) co-occurs with pragmatic completion (the potential for the turn-so-far to convey a recognizable social action), and phonetic/prosodic features consistent with turn endings.

Allocation can happen in two ways: either current speaker selects next, or next speaker self-selects. Furthermore, these alternatives are ranked by a set of rules that applies at each TRP: participants specifically selected to speak next have priority, and if none have been selected by current speaker, then any other participant than current speaker may self-select by speaking first, and finally if no other participant self-selects, then current speaker may self-select and continue speaking.

Techniques for current speaker to select next speaker, and for self-selection by next speaker, are exemplified below. Such techniques are particularly relevant when the conversation has three or more participants (in two-party interactions, the only issue is the timing of transitions).

(i) Next speaker self-selects. Self-selection is typically accomplished by simply being first to actually produce speech at a point where someone else has completed (or almost completed) a recognisable possible TCU. Note that this provides an incentive for next speakers to start early (first starters have priority), which in turn favours the minimization of gaps. However, there also exist more specific documented practices for self-selecting through other (non-speech) conduct, as a precursor to actual speech. A number of these practices involve audible “pre-beginning elements” that claim incipient speakership, such as audible inbreaths, clicks, or clearing your throat (Ogden 2013; Schegloff 1996). Visible practices for self-selecting as next speaker have also been described, for instance pointing gestures (Mondada 2007). In these ways and others, participants can claim the next turn for themselves and preempt others’ self-selection, and project speech to come, before actually saying anything. This can also be done shortly before the current speaker has even finished speaking.

(ii) Current speaker selects next. As for current speaker identifying the prospective next speaker, the use of names or other address terms is a well-known technique (Lerner 2003; Sacks, et al. 1974. Gazing at a specific co-participant when approaching a TRP is very frequently used as a current-selects-next technique in multiparty face-to-face interaction (Lerner 2003; see also, e.g., Auer 2021 for a study using eye-tracking technology). Multimodal CA has investigated further allocational techniques based on visible resources other than gaze, for instance nods or pointing at the prospective next speaker to select them (e.g., Kääntä 2012). All the techniques mentioned so far are generic (‘context-free’) techniques, that is, they do not depend on the specifics of the interaction. However, turn allocation and other-selection in particular may also be achieved via context-specific turn-allocational techniques that draw solely on the particulars of the actions, sequences, and participant identities in the interaction on a case-by-case basis, and these have been termed tacit forms of addressing (Lerner 2003). For instance, when a question has been asked, it may be commonly known that only one of the participants in a multi-party conversation has adequate epistemic access to the state of affairs, and thus that participant may be tacitly addressed and selected to speak next, as the only eligible or qualified answerer. Similarly, follow-up questions are tacitly addressed to the same participant as the original question (Lerner 2003). At least in certain languages (e.g., Japanese), the use of certain registers or politeness levels may also suffice to specify who is being selected as next speaker even without any other, more overt allocational techniques (Hayashi 2010). Finally, it should also be noted that different techniques are frequently combined to allocate speakership to others (Auer 2021).

Additional Related Entries:

• Turn-taking
• Turn construction
• Turn-constructional unit (TCU)
• Transition-relevance place (TRP)
• Choral co-production
• [Anticipatory completion]]

Cited References:

Auer, P. (2021). Turn-allocation and gaze: A multimodal revision of the “current-speaker-selects-next” rule of the turn-taking system of conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 23(2), 117–140.

Hayashi, M. (2010). An overview of the question–response system in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(10), 2685–2702.

Kääntä, L. (2012). Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(2), 166–186.

Lerner, G. H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201.

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

Ogden, R. (2013). Clicks and percussives in English conversation. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 43(3), 299–320.

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. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 52–133). Cambridge University Press.

Additional References: