Single-unit turn

Elliott Hoey (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3220-8119)

To cite: Hoey, Elliott. (2023). Single-unit turn. 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:

For a single-unit turn, a speaker produces one turn-constructional unit (TCU) that terminates at a first place of possible completion, whereupon turn-transition becomes relevant. This is the smallest possible unit of action in a given sequential context. It contrasts with multi-unit turns, for which speakers retain speakership beyond the first place of possible completion (Selting 2000).

At turn-beginning (Schegloff, 1996), a speaker regularly sets into motion, or projects, various trajectories of grammar/syntax, prosody/intonation, and bodily movement (Auer 2005; Ford, et al. 1996; Ford & Thompson 1996; Ford, et al. 2012; Schegloff 1996, 2007, 2011). These trajectories can indicate the kind of unit that is underway and propose what it would take to complete it. The projectability of a turn furnishes a trackable metric by which recipients may anticipate and monitor for possible turn completion (Lerner & Raymond 2021; Schegloff 2007). The production of a single-unit turn relies on the speaker stopping at this projected point of possible completion.

Regularly, trajectories move in parallel and terminate simultaneously to produce a TRP. Grammatical and prosodic contours, especially, are often designed so that their endings co-occur and mark transition-relevance. This is not invariable, of course. Prosodic trajectories may outlast syntactic ones (e.g., Selting 2007) and verbal conduct regularly ends before associated bodily conduct (e.g., Ford, et al. 2012). What is of importance for participants is the adequate recognizable completion of the turn for a given sequential context (Ford 2004; Schegloff 1996, 2006).

Turns (single- and multi-unit) are composed of linguistic constituents of various sizes, from the smaller segmental and lexical units, to larger phrases, clauses, and sentences (Sacks, et al., 1974). For many activities, non-/extra-linguistic conduct, such as bodily movement or non-lexical vocalizations, is also treated as part of the turn (e.g., Ford, et al. 2012; Hayashi 2005; Keevallik 2013, 2014, 2018; Keevallik & Ogden 2020). The extent to which such multimodal resources are integrated into the turn (and thus turn-constructional) is decided by members on a case-by-case basis within specific ecological and activity contexts (Mondada 2014).

Regarding the status of reaction tokens (continuers, backchannels, response tokens, etc.; see Gardner 2001) as single-units turns, there appears to be consensus that these are not bona fide ‘turns’. Though they are regularly produced as singular utterances with a projectable structure, they are produced by recipients as recipients to ongoing talk. Indeed, Schegloff (1982) argues that such utterances are specifically designed to pass on taking a turn.

In some languages—notably Japanese (Nishizaka 2017)—participants may treat single-unit turns as allowing for recipient participation. That is, a single-unit turn in such languages can have sub-TCU boundaries where speakers pause to provide for recipient activity like a head nod or reaction token. These interactive turn spaces (Iwasaki 2009, 2011, 2013) demonstrate that recipients may collaborate in the production of a TCU before its arrival at a first TRP.

Additional Related Entries:

• Increment
• Interactive turn spaces
• Multi-unit turn
• Transition-Relevance Place (TRP)
• Turn-constructional Unit (TCU)
• Turn-taking

Cited References:

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

Ford, C. E. (2004). Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies, 6, 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. & 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(3-4), 192-212.

Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. John Benjamins.

Hayashi, M. (2005). Joint turn construction through language and the body: Notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities. Semiotica, 156, 21-53.

Iwasaki, S. (2009). Initiating interactive turn spaces in Japanese conversation: Local projection and collaborative action. Discourse Processes, 46(2-3), 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. In B. Szcepek-Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.) Units of Talk - Units of Action (pp. 243-275). John Benjamins.

Keevallik, L. (2013). The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 46(1), 1-21.

Keevallik, L. (2014). Turn organization and bodily-vocal demonstrations. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 103-120.

Keevallik, L. (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar?. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 1-21.

Keevallik, L., & Ogden, R. (2020). Sounds on the margins of language at the heart of interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 1-18.

Lerner, G. H., & Raymond, G. (2021). Body trouble: Some sources of difficulty in the progressive realization of manual action. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54(3), 277-298.

Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137-156.

Nishizaka, A. (2017). A sentence dispersed within a turn-at-talk: Response-opportunity places as loci for interactional work. East Asian Pragmatics, 2(2), 229–258.

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. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk (pp. 71–93). Georgetown University Press.

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.

Schegloff, E. A. (2006). On possibles. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 141-157.

Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis (vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (2011). Word repeats as unit ends. Discourse Studies, 13(3), 367-380.

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

Selting, M. (2007). Lists as embedded structures and the prosody of list construction as an interactional resource. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 483-526.

Additional References:

Reed, B. S., & Raymond, G. (Eds.). (2013). Units of Talk – Units of Action. John Benjamins.