Turn-taking

Last updated
Individuals involved in a conversation take turns speaking Harald Sunde in conversation.jpg
Individuals involved in a conversation take turns speaking

Turn-taking is a type of organization in conversation and discourse where participants speak one at a time in alternating turns. In practice, it involves processes for constructing contributions, responding to previous comments, and transitioning to a different speaker, using a variety of linguistic and non-linguistic cues. [1]

Contents

While the structure is generally universal, [2] that is, overlapping talk is generally avoided and silence between turns is minimized, turn-taking conventions vary by culture and community. [3] Conventions vary in many ways, such as how turns are distributed, how transitions are signaled, or how long the average gap is between turns.

In many contexts, conversation turns are a valuable means to participate in social life and have been subject to competition. [4] It is often thought that turn-taking strategies differ by gender; consequently, turn-taking has been a topic of intense examination in gender studies. While early studies supported gendered stereotypes, such as men interrupting more than women and women talking more than men, [5] recent research has found mixed evidence of gender-specific conversational strategies, and few overarching patterns have emerged. [6]

Organization

In conversation analysis, turn-taking organization describes the sets of practices speakers use to construct and allocate turns. [1] The organization of turn-taking was first explored as a part of conversation analysis by Harvey Sacks with Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and their model is still generally accepted in the field. [7]

Turn-taking structure within a conversation has three components: [8]

  1. The current speaker selects the next speaker and transfers the turn to them; or
  2. One of the non-speakers self-selects, with the first person to speak claiming the next turn; or
  3. No one self-selects, and the current speaker continues until the next TRP or the conversation ends

This order of steps serves to maintain two important elements of conversation: one person speaking at a time and minimized space between when one person stops talking and another begins. [9] Because the system is not optimized for fairness or efficiency, and because turn-taking is not reliant on a set number or type of participants, [9] there are many variations in how turn-taking occurs. [10]

Timing

Another cue associated with turn-taking is that of timing. Within turn-taking, timing may cue the hearer to know that they have a turn to speak or make an utterance. Due to the very nature of turn-taking and that it is dependent on the context, timing varies within a turn and may be subjective within the conversation. Vocal patterns, such as pitch, specific to the individual also cue the hearer to know how the timing will play out in turn-taking. [11]

Deborah Tannen also shows timing differences in relation to turn-taking. For a particular study, she used a recording of a conversation between a group of her friends at dinner. The group included men and women from across the United States of mixed ethnicities. She concluded that while the amount of space left between speakers may differ, it differs most dramatically between people from different regions. For instance, New Yorkers tend to overlap in conversation, while Californians tend to leave more space between turns and sentences. [12]

Kobin H. Kendrick argues that rules and constraints that are established within a turn-taking system are done so to minimize the amount of time spent transitioning between turns. [13] Not all transitions are minimal; Schlegloff found that transitions before turns that incorporate other-initiations of repair (OIRs; e.g. "what?", "who?") were found to be longer than other transitions. [14]

Overlap

When more than one person is engaging in a conversation, there is potential for overlapping or interruption while both or many parties are speaking at the same time. Overlapping in turn-taking can be problematic for the people involved. There are four types of overlap including terminal overlaps, continuers, conditional access to the turn, and chordal. Terminal overlaps occur when a speaker assumes the other speaker has or is about to finish their turn and begins to speak, thus creating overlap. Continuers are a way of the hearer acknowledging or understanding what the speaker is saying. As noted by Schegloff, such examples of the continuer's phrases are "mm hm" or "uh huh." Conditional access to the turn implies that the current speaker yields their turn or invites another speaker to interject in the conversation, usually as collaborative effort. [15] Another example that Schegloff illustrates is a speaker invited another to speak out of turn when finding a word in a word search. Chordal consists of a non-serial occurrence of turns; meaning both speakers' turns are occurring at once, such as laughter. The above types of overlap are considered to be non-competitive overlap in conversation. [15]

Schegloff suggested an overlap resolution device, which consists of three parts: [15]

Gail Jefferson proposed a categorization of overlaps in conversation with three types of overlap onsets: transitional overlap, recognitional overlap and progressional overlap. [16]

Sacks, one of the first to study conversation, found a correlation between keeping only one person speaking at a time and controlling the amount of silences between speakers. [9] Although there is no limit or specific requirement for the number of speakers in a given conversation, the number of conversations will rise as the number of participants rise.

Overlaps can often be seen as problematic in terms of turn-taking, with the majority of research being between cooperative versus competitive overlap. One theory by Goldberg (1990) [17] argues the dynamic relationship between overlap and power over the conversation by suggesting that two types of overlap are power interruptions and displays of rapport. During conversation, a listener has an obligation to support the speaker. An interruption impedes upon this obligation by infringing upon the wishes of the speaker (which is to be heard). The difference between a power interruption or rapport is the degree to which the speakers' wishes are impeded upon. Rapport interruptions contribute to the conversation in that they ultimately cooperate and collaborate with the speaker in order to reach a mutual goal of understanding. Power interruptions are generally hostile and do not cooperate with the speaker. The goals of the power interruptor are both divergent from and regardless of the goals of the speaker. Power interruptions are further categorized into two types: process control interruptions and content control interruptions. Process control interruptions involve attempts to change the topic by utilizing questions and requests, and because they return control to the original speaker are generally seen as the less threatening of the two. Content control interruptions involve attempts to change the topic by utilizing assertions or statements that are unrelated to the current topic. Content control interruptions are viewed as problematic and threatening since they seize control of both the topic and attention away from the speaker.

However, while overlaps have the potential to be competitive, many overlaps are cooperative. Schegloff [15] concludes that the majority of overlaps are non-problematic. Konakahara et al. [18] explores cooperative overlap by observing 15 graduate students from 11 different lingua-cultural backgrounds in an ELF (English as a lingua franca) conversation, or an English-based conversation among individuals of multiple native languages. Two types of overlap were observed: overlaps that were continuers or assessments and did not substantially contribute to the conversation or demand attention away from the speaker, and overlaps that were questions or statements and moved the conversation forwards. The majority of overlap during the study consisted of continuers or assessments that were non-interruptive. Overlapping questions and their interactional environment were analyzed in particular. It was found that overlapping questions demonstrate the speaker's interest in the conversation and knowledge of the content, act as clarifiers, and progress the conversation. In response, speakers who are interrupted by overlapping questions continue on to clarify their meaning. This suggests that overlapping questions, while interruptive in the fact that they demand attention away from the speaker, are cooperative in nature in that they significantly contribute to achieving mutual understanding and communication.

While Goldberg's study primarily focuses on the distinctions and characteristics between power interruptors and displays of rapport, Konakahara et al. explores the ways in which overlap, in particular overlapping questions, can be collaborative and cooperative.

Eye contact

During a conversation, turn-taking may involve a cued gaze that prompts the listener that it is their turn or that the speaker is finished talking. There are two gazes that have been identified and associated with turn-taking. The two patterns associated with turn-taking are mutual-break and mutual-hold. Mutual-break is when there is a pause in the conversation and both participants use a momentary break with mutual gaze toward each other, breaking the gaze, then continuing conversation again. This type is correlated with a perceived smoothness due to a decrease in the taking of turns. Mutual-hold is when the speaker also takes a pause in the conversation with mutual gaze, but then still holds the gaze as they start to speak again. Mutual-hold is associated with less successful turn-taking process, because there are more turns taken, thus more turns required to complete. [19]

David Langford also argues that turn-taking is an organizational system. Langford examines facial features, eye contact, and other gestures in order to prove that turn-taking is signaled by many gestures, not only a break in speech. His claims stem from analysis of conversations through speech, sign language, and technology. His comparisons of English and American Sign Language show that turn-taking is systematic and universal across languages and cultures. His research concludes that there is more to turn-taking than simply hearing a pause. As other researchers have shown, eye gaze is an important signal for participants of a conversation to pay attention to. Usually, whoever is speaking will shift their gaze away from the other participants involved in the conversation. When they are finished or about to be finished speaking the speaker will revert their gaze back to the participant that will speak next. [20]

Cultural variation

Turn-taking is developed and socialized from very early on – the first instances being the interactions between parent and child – but it can still be thought of as a learned skill, rather than an innate attribute. [21] Conversational turn-taking is greatly affected by culture. For instance, in Japanese culture, social structure and norms of interaction are reflected in the negotiation of turns in Japanese discourse, specifically with the use of backchannel, or reactive tokens ( aizuchi ). [22] Backchannel refers to listener responses, mostly phatic expressions, that are made to support both the speaker's flow of speech and their right to maintain the floor in conversation. Aizuchi is simply the Japanese term for backchannel, but some linguists make a distinction since the importance of aizuchi in Japanese conversation can be considered higher than in English conversation.[ citation needed ]

Japanese speakers make use of backchannel far more than American English speakers. In recorded conversations between pairs of same-sex college-age friends, Maynard (1990) found that English-speaking students used backchannel expressions such as uh-huh or right, mainly at grammatical completion points. Less frequently, the English speakers moved their head or laughed while the other speaker paused or after an utterance was completed. [22]

B: Yeah I think I know what you mean./

(A:1 Yeah) [23]

In contrast, the Japanese speakers often produced backchannel expressions such as un or sō while their partner was speaking. They also tended to mark the end of their own utterances with sentence-final particles, and produced vertical head movements near the end of their partner's utterances. [22] Example: [24]

JapaneseTranslation
B: Oya kara sureba kodomo ga sureba iya/ [LAUGH]B: From your parent's view, if the child does... [laugh]
   (A:2 Sō sō sō sō)   (A:2 Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah)
A: Demo oya wa ne mō saikin sō moA: But nowadays parents don't
   (B:2 Sō)   (B:2 I see)
A: iwanaku-natta kedoA: say those things

This demonstrates culturally different floor management strategies. The form of backchannels was similar: both Japanese and American subjects used brief utterances and head movements to signal involvement. The Japanese interlocutors, however, produced backchannels earlier and more often throughout conversation, while the Americans limited their responses mainly to pauses between turns. [22]

Additionally, turn-taking can vary in aspects such as time, overlap, and perception of silence in different cultures, but can have universal similarities as well. Stivers et al. (2009) cross-examined ten various indigenous languages across the globe to see if there were any similar underlying foundation in turn-taking. In analyzing these languages, it was discovered that all ten languages had the same avoidance of wanting to overlap in conversation and wanting to minimize the silence between turn-taking. However, depending on the culture, there was variation in the amount of time taken between turns. Stivers claims that their evidence from examining these languages suggests that there is an underlying universal aspect to turn-taking. [25]

Gender

Research has shown that gender is one of many factors that influence the turn-taking strategies between conversation participants. Studies of turn-taking in male-female interactions have yielded mixed results about the exact role of gender in predicting conversational patterns. Such analyses of turn-taking have analyzed conversations in various contexts ranging from verbal exchange between two romantic partners to scripted dialogue in American sitcoms. Rates of interruption are a widely researched area of turn-taking that has elicited various results that conflict with one another, reflecting inconsistencies across studies of gender and turn-taking.

One study reports that male interlocutors systematically interrupt females and tend to dominate conversations, and women are frequently treated in much the same way as children are in conversations. [26] This interruption, however, is not due to female interlocutors' lack of desire or initiative to speak and be heard in a conversation. "Deep" interruption, or interruption at least two syllables before a potential utterance boundary, is perpetuated more frequently by men, towards women, regardless of ways that women negotiate these interruptions. [27]

Other studies suggest that in certain situational contexts, the dominant participants of a conversation will interrupt others regardless of the gender of the speakers. In a study of various romantic relationships, the dominant partners were the ones who interrupted more. [28] Neither the gender of the interrupter nor that of the interrupted partner were correlated with interruption rates.

Language and conversation are primary ways in which social interaction is organized. Unequal conversational patterns are therefore reflective of larger power disparities between men and women. One study by Zimmerman and West found that in same-sex pair conversations, overlap and interruption tend to be equally distributed between the two interlocutors, and interruptions are clustered – that is, only a few of the pairs did all of the interrupting. For opposite-sex pairs, male interlocutors interrupt much more, and interruptions are much more widely distributed – that is, most men did it. [26] Gender differences in turn-taking are not invariable, however, and are related to the conditions and context of the speech. [26] Gendered aspects of speech and turn-taking must be recognized as being reflective of the cultures in which they exist. [29]

Questions have been raised about the correlation between interruption and dominance, and its importance to gender as opposed to other social categories. Studies done by Beattie find status difference more important than gender difference in predicting which speakers interrupted more. [21] In another study done by Krupnick, in a classroom setting, the gender of a conversation moderator, namely the instructor, will affect the turn-taking of male and female speakers. [30] She found that boys talk more than female students in classes taught by men, and although women may speak three times more when the instructor is female, their turns came in very short bursts. Krupnick observes that these conversations maintain a "gender rhythm" which cannot be separated from the academic and authoritative contexts. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

Sociolinguistics is the descriptive study of the effect of any or all aspects of society, including cultural norms, expectations, and context, on language and the ways it is used. It can overlap with the sociology of language, which focuses on the effect of language on society. Sociolinguistics overlaps considerably with pragmatics and is closely related to linguistic anthropology.

Transcription in the linguistic sense is the systematic representation of spoken language in written form. The source can either be utterances or preexisting text in another writing system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deborah Tannen</span> American sociolinguist

Deborah Frances Tannen is an American author and professor of linguistics at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. Best known as the author of You Just Don't Understand, she has been a McGraw Distinguished Lecturer at Princeton University and was a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences following a term in residence at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conversation analysis</span> Approach to the study of social interaction

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction that empirically investigates the mechanisms by which humans achieve mutual understanding. It focuses on both verbal and non-verbal conduct, especially in situations of everyday life. CA originated as a sociological method, but has since spread to other fields. CA began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings, and the mass media, and focus on multimodal and nonverbal activity in interaction, including gaze, body movement and gesture. As a consequence, the term conversation analysis has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of interactions. CA and ethnomethodology are sometimes considered one field and referred to as EMCA.

Universal pragmatics (UP), more recently placed under the heading of formal pragmatics, is the philosophical study of the necessary conditions for reaching an understanding through communication. The philosopher Jürgen Habermas coined the term in his essay "What is Universal Pragmatics?" where he suggests that human competition, conflict, and strategic action are attempts to achieve understanding that have failed because of modal confusions. The implication is that coming to terms with how people understand or misunderstand one another could lead to a reduction of social conflict.

Harvey Sacks was an American sociologist influenced by the ethnomethodology tradition. He pioneered extremely detailed studies of the way people use language in everyday life. Despite his early death in a car crash and the fact that he did not publish widely, he founded the discipline of conversation analysis. His work has had significant influence on fields such as linguistics, discourse analysis, and discursive psychology.

An interlanguage is an idiolect which has been developed by a learner of a second language (L2) which preserves some features of their first language (L1) and can overgeneralize some L2 writing and speaking rules. These two characteristics give an interlanguage its unique linguistic organization. It is idiosyncratically based on the learner's experiences with L2. An interlanguage can fossilize, or cease developing, in any of its developmental stages. It is claimed that several factors shape interlanguage rules, including L1 transfer, previous learning strategies, strategies of L2 acquisition, L2 communication strategies, and the overgeneralization of L2 language patterns.

Gail Jefferson was an American sociologist with an emphasis in sociolinguistics. She was, along with Harvey Sacks and Emanuel Schegloff, one of the founders of the area of research known as conversation analysis (CA). She is remembered for the methods and notational conventions she developed for transcribing speech, the latter forming the Jefferson Transcription System. This is now used widely in CA research.

Language production is the production of spoken or written language. In psycholinguistics, it describes all of the stages between having a concept to express and translating that concept into linguistic forms. These stages have been described in two types of processing models: the lexical access models and the serial models. Through these models, psycholinguists can look into how speeches are produced in different ways, such as when the speaker is bilingual. Psycholinguists learn more about these models and different kinds of speech by using language production research methods that include collecting speech errors and elicited production tasks.

A turn construction unit (TCU) is the fundamental segment of speech in a conversation, as analysed in conversation analysis.

In linguistics, an adjacency pair is an example of conversational turn-taking. An adjacency pair is composed of two utterances by two speakers, one after the other. The speaking of the first utterance provokes a responding utterance. Adjacency pairs are a component of pragmatic variation in the study of linguistics, and are considered primarily to be evident in the "interactional" function of pragmatics. Adjacency pairs exist in every language and vary in context and content among each, based on the cultural values held by speakers of the respective language. Oftentimes, they are contributed by speakers in an unconscious way, as they are an intrinsic part of the language spoken at-hand and are therefore embedded in speakers' understanding and use of the language. Thus, adjacency pairs may present their challenges when a person begins learning a language not native to them, as the cultural context and significance behind the adjacency pairs may not be evident to a speaker outside of the primary culture associated with the language.

In sociolinguistics, SPEAKING or the SPEAKING model, is a model socio-linguistic study developed by Dell Hymes. Hymes developed this model as part of a new methodology referred to as the ethnography of speaking. This model is a tool to assist the identification and labeling of components of interactional linguistics that was driven by his view that, in order to speak a language correctly, one needs not only to learn its vocabulary and grammar, but also the context in which words are used. In essence, learning the components of the SPEAKING model is essential for linguistic competence.

Research into the many possible relationships, intersections and tensions between language and gender is diverse. It crosses disciplinary boundaries, and, as a bare minimum, could be said to encompass work notionally housed within applied linguistics, linguistic anthropology, conversation analysis, cultural studies, feminist media studies, feminist psychology, gender studies, interactional sociolinguistics, linguistics, mediated stylistics, sociolinguistics, and feminist language reform and media studies.

Grounding in communication is a concept proposed by Herbert H. Clark and Susan E. Brennan. It comprises the collection of "mutual knowledge, mutual beliefs, and mutual assumptions" that is essential for communication between two people. Successful grounding in communication requires parties "to coordinate both the content and process". The concept is also common in philosophy of language.

Interactional linguistics (IL) is an interdisciplinary approach to grammar and interaction in the field of linguistics, that applies the methods of Conversation Analysis to the study of linguistic structures, including syntax, phonetics, morphology, and so on. Interactional linguistics is based on the principle that linguistic structures and uses are formed through interaction and it aims at understanding how languages are shaped through interaction. The approach focuses on temporality, activity implication and embodiment in interaction. Interactional linguistics asks research questions such as "How are linguistic patterns shaped by interaction?" and "How do linguistic patterns themselves shape interaction?".

LGBT linguistics is the study of language as used by members of LGBT communities. Related or synonymous terms include lavender linguistics, advanced by William Leap in the 1990s, which "encompass[es] a wide range of everyday language practices" in LGBT communities, and queer linguistics, which refers to the linguistic analysis concerning the effect of heteronormativity on expressing sexual identity through language. The former term derives from the longtime association of the color lavender with LGBT communities. "Language", in this context, may refer to any aspect of spoken or written linguistic practices, including speech patterns and pronunciation, use of certain vocabulary, and, in a few cases, an elaborate alternative lexicon such as Polari.

In sociolinguistics, a style is a set of linguistic variants with specific social meanings. In this context, social meanings can include group membership, personal attributes, or beliefs. Linguistic variation is at the heart of the concept of linguistic style—without variation, there is no basis for distinguishing social meanings. Variation can occur syntactically, lexically, and phonologically.

In linguistics, a backchanneling during a conversation occurs when one participant is speaking and another participant interjects responses to the speaker. A backchannel response can be verbal, non-verbal, or both. Backchannel responses are often phatic expressions, primarily serving a social or meta-conversational purpose, such as signifying the listener's attention, understanding, sympathy, or agreement, rather than conveying significant information. Examples of backchanneling in English include such expressions as "yeah", "OK", "uh-huh", "hmm", "right", and "I see".

In linguistics, a co-construction is a single syntactic entity in conversation and discourse that is uttered by more than two or more speakers. Other names for this concept include collaboratively built sentences, sentences-in-progress, and joint utterance constructions. Used in this specific linguistic context, co-construction is not to be confused with the broader social interactional sense of the same name. Co-construction is studied across several linguistic sub-disciplines, including applied linguistics, conversation analysis, linguistic anthropology, and language acquisition.

An interruption is a speech action when one person breaks in to interject while another person is talking. Linguists, social psychologists, anthropologists, and sociologists are among the social scientists who have studied and identified patterns of interruption that may differ by gender, social status, race/ethnicity, culture, and political orientation.

References

  1. 1 2 Drew, Paul; Heritage, John (2006). Drew, Paul; Heritage, John (eds.). Conversation Analysis. Vol. I. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. pp. xxxiv. ISBN   978-1-4129-1848-0.
  2. ↑ Stivers, Tanya; Enfield, N. J.; Brown, Penelope; Englert, Christina; Hayashi, Makoto; Heinemann, Trine; Hoymann, Gertie; Rossano, Federico; de Ruiter, Jan Peter (2009-06-30). "Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (26): 10587–10592. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10610587S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 . PMC   2705608 . PMID   19553212.
  3. ↑ Sidnell, Jack (2007-01-01). "Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis". Annual Review of Anthropology. 36: 229–244. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094313. JSTOR   25064954.
  4. ↑ Hayashi, Makoto (2012-01-01). "Turn Allocation and Turn Sharing". In Sidnell, Jack; Stivers, Tanya (eds.). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. pp. 167–190. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch9. ISBN   9781118325001.
  5. ↑ Eckert, Penelope; McConnell-Ginet, Sally (2013), Language and Gender, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 58–60, ISBN   9781107029057 .
  6. ↑ Eckert & McConnell-Ginet 2013, pp. 95–101.
  7. ↑ "Conversation Analysis - Sociology - Oxford Bibliographies - obo". oxfordbibliographiesonline.com. Retrieved 2016-06-22.
  8. ↑ Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson, Gail (1974-01-01). "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation". Language. 50 (4): 696–735. doi:10.2307/412243. hdl: 11858/00-001M-0000-002C-4337-3 . JSTOR   412243.
  9. 1 2 3 Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. pp. 2.32–66.
  10. ↑ Hirsch, Richard (1989). Argumentation, Information, and Interaction: Studies in Face-to-face Interactive Argumentation Under Different Turn-Taking Conditions. Gothenburg: Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics.
  11. ↑ Cowley, S. (1998). "Of timing, turn-taking, and conversations". Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 27 (5): 541–571. doi:10.1023/A:1024948912805. S2CID   142044575.
  12. ↑ Tannen, Deborah (2012). "Turn-taking and intercultural discourse and communication". In Paulston, Christina; Kiesling, Scott; Rangel, Elizabeth (eds.). The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication. Chicester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 135–157. doi:10.1002/9781118247273.ch8. ISBN   9781118247273.
  13. ↑ Kendrick, Kobin (2015). "The intersection of turn-taking and repair: the timing of other-initiations of repair in conversation". Frontiers in Psychology. 6: 250. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00250 . PMC   4357221 . PMID   25814968. S2CID   18441757.
  14. ↑ Schlegloff, Emanuel (1977). "The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation". Linguistic Society of America. 53 (2): 361–382. doi:10.1353/lan.1977.0041. S2CID   143617589.
  15. 1 2 3 4 Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2000). "Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation". Language in Society. 29 (1): 1–63. doi: 10.1017/s0047404500001019 .
  16. ↑ Jefferson, Gail (1984). "Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset" (PDF). Discourse Analysis and Natural Rhetoric: 11–38.
  17. ↑ Goldberg, Julia A. (1990-12-01). "Interrupting the discourse on interruptions". Journal of Pragmatics. 14 (6): 883–903. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(90)90045-F.
  18. ↑ Konakahara, Mayu (2015-07-01). "An analysis overlapping questions in casual ELF conversation: Cooperative or competitive contribution". Journal of Pragmatics. 84: 37–53. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2015.04.014.
  19. ↑ Novick, David G.; Hansen, Brian; Ward, Karen (1996). "Coordinating turn-taking with gaze". Proceeding of Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. ICSLP '96. Vol. 3. pp. 1888–1891. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.16.4486 . doi:10.1109/ICSLP.1996.608001. ISBN   978-0-7803-3555-4. S2CID   10324604.
  20. ↑ Langford, David. "Analysing talk: Investigating verbal interaction in English", 1994. London, UK: Macmillan Press, pp.69-118.
  21. 1 2 Beattie, Geoffrey (1983). Talk: An Analysis of Speech and Non-Verbal Behaviour in Conversation. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press. pp. 77–170.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Maynard, Senko K. (1990). "Conversation Management in Contrast: Listener Response in Japanese and American English". Journal of Pragmatics. 14 (3): 397–412. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(90)90097-w.
  23. ↑ Maynard 1990, p. 407.
  24. ↑ Maynard 1990, p. 405.
  25. ↑ Stivers, T.; Enfield, N. J.; Brown, P.; Englert, C.; Hayashi, M.; Heinemann, T.; Levinson, S. (2009). "Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 106 (26): 10587–10592. Bibcode:2009PNAS..10610587S. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 . PMC   2705608 . PMID   19553212.
  26. 1 2 3 Zimmerman, Don H.; West, Candace (1975). "Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation". Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance: 105–129.
  27. ↑ West, Candace (1979). "Against Our Will: Male Interruptions of Females in Cross-Sex Conversation". Language, Sex, and Gender: Does la Difference Make a Difference?: Result of a Workshop: New York Academy of Sciences, 1977. 327 (1): 81–96. Bibcode:1979NYASA.327...81W. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1979.tb17755.x. S2CID   146801314.
  28. ↑ Kollock, Peter; Blumstein, Philip; Schwartz, Pepper (1985). "Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties". American Sociological Review. 50 (1): 34–46. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.63.4385 . doi:10.2307/2095338. JSTOR   2095338.
  29. ↑ Scherzer, Joel. 1987. A diversity of voices: men's and women's speech in ethnographic perspective. Language, Gender, and Sex in Comparative Perspective. ed. Philips, Susan U.; Steele, Susan; and Tanz, Christine. 95-120. Cambridge University Press.
  30. 1 2 Krupnick, Catherine. "Women and Men in the Classroom: Inequality and Its Remedies." On Teaching and Learning 1 (1985): 34-46. Web.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.