Turn-taking

Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Turn-taking
Author(s):	Rasmus Persson (Uppsala University, Sweden) (https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7253-9636)
To cite:	Persson, Rasmus. (2023). Turn-taking. 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/AX248

Turn-taking refers primarily to the coordinated ways in which speaking turns are distributed among participants, in two-party or multi-party interactions. Put another way, turn-taking is the task of figuring out “who should talk next and when [they should] do so” (Schegloff, 2007: xiv). This fundamental task has been described as one of the generic organisational domains (the other domains being action formation, sequence organisation, repair, word-selection and overall structural organization) that make orderly talk-in-interaction possible (Schegloff, 2007). The conversation-analytic study of turn-taking as an orderly phenomenon relies on the observation that in conversation, participants do take turns speaking: normatively, one participant speaks at a time, and gaps and overlaps (although frequent) are minimized (Sacks et al., 1974; Schegloff, 2000). According to the model developed by Sacks et al. (1974), which is still widely accepted, the accomplishment of such orderliness relies on a turn-taking systematics with two components:

• A turn-construction component, dictating where in the stream of talk transition-relevance places (TRPs) occur (i.e. places where speaker-transition becomes relevant). Each speaker is allotted one turn-constructional unit (TCU) to begin with (unless special projective devices are deployed to claim multiple units, as in the construction of a multi-unit turn such as a storytelling, see Selting, 2000).
• A turn-allocation component, comprising techniques for distributing speakership among participants at such TRPs (either current speaker selects next, or next speaker self-selects – see turn allocation).

The systematics also includes an ordered set of rules for turn-allocation. Essentially, the rules dictate that:

1. if current speaker has selected a next speaker, then that speaker may (and should) take the next turn;
2. alternatively, if no next speaker has been selected by current speaker, then any participant may self-select by starting to speak (before others) and thus gain the right to the next turn;
3. finally, if no other participant self-selects either, current speaker may also self-select (and thus continue speaking).

This rule-set is activated at each new TRP that arises.

The Sacks et al. (1974) turn-taking model accounts for the fact that turn-taking is overwhelmingly achieved with minimised gaps and overlaps, despite the fact that participants do not know in advance for how many seconds (or words) a speaking turn will go on, and which order they will speak in – participants work out these things among themselves, one turn at a time. In addition, this turn-taking model accounts for other observable facts, for instance that there may be lapses in turn-by-turn talk, and that turn-taking works well for interactions with different numbers of participants.

Researchers have begun to explore the seemingly robust parallels of turn-taking organisation in conversation across languages and cultures, with only small, quantitative differences in the average duration of gaps between turns (e.g., Stivers et al., 2009). However, languages may differ substantially as to how TRPs are projected and later made recognisable through turn-constructional resources such as syntax or phonetic turn design (see turn construction). For instance, Japanese grammar is structured so that turn beginnings do not necessarily project what it will take for the turn to be complete, and participants rely heavily on turn-final elements like final particles and verb suffixes for setting up TRPs (Fox et al., 1996; Tanaka, 1999). In Finnish, non-modal voice quality such as creak, breathy voice and whisper frequently serves to mark TCU completion with or without concurrent syntactic cues (Ogden, 2004).

On the other hand, a wealth of research has examined the specialised systems for turn-taking found in various forms of institutional or professional interaction such as court proceedings (e.g. Atkinson & Drew, 1979), interviews (e.g. Greatbatch, 1988), interpreter-mediated encounters (e.g. Wadensjö, 1998), classroom interaction (e.g. Fasel Lauzon & Berger, 2015) and political gatherings (e.g. Mondada et al., 2017). The turn-taking principles in such interactions can be seen as diverging from those of ordinary conversation in the sense that to some extent, turn-allocation and/or turn-construction is pre-established, constrained or mediated (e.g., by a chairperson). For instance, part of what constitutes an interview is the pre-established restriction of each participant’s contributions to either asking or answering questions. Thus, a turn-in-progress is continuously monitored for when it is recognisably complete as a question (or alternatively as an answer), and only at such points does transition become relevant – which enables turns with lengthy background statements (Heritage & Clayman, 2010).

In multimodal CA, turn-taking has also occasionally been used as a term for the allocation of turns for other activities than talk (which are nevertheless organised according to the pattern of one party at a time). This may variously resemble turn-taking for speakership (see, e.g., Ivarsson & Greiffenhagen, 2015 on turn-taking in skateparks; Keevallik & Ekström, 2019 on turn-taking in lindy hop circles).

Additional Related Entries:

• Turn allocation
• Turn construction
• Turn-constructional unit (TCU)
• Transition-relevance place (TRP)
• Turn holding

Cited References:

Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Macmillan.

Fasel Lauzon, V., & Berger, E. (2015). The multimodal organization of speaker selection in classroom interaction. Linguistics and Education, 31, 14–29.

Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 185–237). Cambridge University Press.

Greatbatch, D. (1988). A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society, 17(3), 401–430.

Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.

Ivarsson, J., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2015). The organization of turn-taking in pool skate sessions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 406–429.

Keevallik, L., & Ekström, A. (2019). How to take the floor as a couple: Turn-taking in lindy hop jam circles. Visual Anthropology, 32(5), 423–444.

Mondada, L., Svensson, H., & van Schepen, N. (2017). A table-based turn-taking system and its political consequences: Managing participation, building opinion groups, and fostering consensus. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(1), 83–109.

Ogden, R. (2004). Non-modal voice quality and turn-taking in Finnish. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Sound Patterns in Interaction (pp. 29–62). John Benjamins.

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. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29(1), 1–63.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge University Press.

Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29(4), 477–517.

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 turntaking in conversation. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), 106(26), 10587–10592.

Tanaka, H. (1999). Turn-Taking in Japanese Conversation: A Study in Grammar and Interaction. John Benjamins.

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. Routledge.

Additional References: