1
question 6.
Title of the essay:
The Role of Projections and Multimodal Signaling in “Seamless” Turn-Taking
Exam candidate number: SBXX4
Word count: 1200
(only the body of the text, not including this first page or the reference list at the end)
1
2
question 6.
Introduction
Conversations are interactive (with speakers and recipients) and founded on
smooth, normative turn exchanges: “on-time” speaker transition, with minimal
overlap/gap (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2017). A (multi-unit) turn is composed of one
(several) turn-constructional unit(s) or TCU(s) (unit: sentence/clause/phrase/word);
the distribution of turns is specified by turn-allocational techniques: “current-speakerselects-next” or “self-selection” (Sacks et al., 1974).
Given the discrete and alternating nature of turns and turn-taking, how can
conversations be so seamless? Predicting turn completion points – using linguistic
cues – is essential for turn-taking in “successful” conversations: predictions help
speakers prepare for their future turn (Sjerps & Meyer, 2015: speech planning occurs
towards the end of turns), while turn-allocational techniques help choose the next
speaker. Readily available multimodal sensory cues support these fast transitions.
In multi-unit (sentential/clausal) turns, the linguistic features (syntactic and
prosodic) of early TCUs influence later ones within the turn (“projection”); the
projectability of TCUs makes turn completion points predictable to current recipients
(Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2017).
In English, speakers heavily rely on the syntactic construction of turns for the
projection of clausal units, since the fixed Subject-Verb-Object word order is highly
common (thus predictable), allowing for early projectability (see Table 1); using their
syntactic knowledge, conversational partners can, early on, predict turn completion
points, (Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen, 2005). This is arguably expandable to other
syntactically regular languages, whose fixed word orders are commonly used (see
Table 1: Turkish). One implication is that patterns of conversational interactions
might differ in less syntactically regular languages where predictions cannot be made
early on; Thompson & Couper-Kuhlen (2005) used conversation samples from
Tanaka’s corpora (2000) to highlight the differences between Japanese (where turns
2
question 6.
3
are recurrently and incrementally built: late projectability) and English in next-turn
onset: although potential next-speakers of both languages orient to the end of the
current clause to add their next turn, English speakers are aided by the S-V-O
structure (or “subject first, predicates after” rule, more generally), whereas Japanese
speakers do not expect clausal referents like subjects and objects to be explicitly
expressed (or they are “predicate-final”, alternatively).
We might (1) infer that given this syntax-based account, predicting completion points
via turn projectability is not one robust explanation for smooth turn-taking and (2)
hypothesise that turn transitions in conversations are faster in English than
Japanese. Regarding (1), conversations also often lack units with clear syntactic
structures, even in otherwise regular languages (e.g., in casual settings, or simply
transitioning from the written to spoken modality).
However, Stivers et al’s statistical analyses on 10 language samples (2009)
indicated that Japanese has the fastest mean turn transition time (7ms) – faster than
English (236ms). This implies that Japanese speakers predict completion points,
perhaps earlier and/or more accurately than English speakers; this is implausible in
the syntax-based account of turn projectability. What resolves this conflict is that turn
projectability is not solely syntactic-based but can also depend on prosodic
regularities (Couper-Kuhlen & Selting, 2017): indeed, Tanaka’s analysis (2000) on
Hayashi’s Japanese corpora revealed that speakers use marked prosody to project
turn completion; such prosodic contours are used in predictions, in addition to the
recognition of utterance-final elements (since Japanese has a strong predicate-final
orientation). Tanaka (2000) argued that these two mechanisms (“devices”) can
precisely localise possible transition-relevance places and compensate for the
delayed syntactic turn projectability. Thus, the inference in (1) is unfounded, given
that prosody also influences TCU projection; speakers of late-projectability
languages with less regular syntax can rely more on prosodic contours. Interactions
between syntactic and prosodic influences are likely key in speakers’ predictions:
3
question 6.
4
illustratively, English speakers also make use of prosody. In parallel-opposition
constructions, “current-speaker” can hold the floor for a second, opposing clause by
using prosodic cues: e.g., prolonging their intonation into a follow-up turn (BarthWeingarten, 2009: “continuing intonation”).
Within-turn projections (syntactic, prosodic) are picked up by recipients to form
context-sensitive inferences about turn completion points, which facilitates turntaking in naturally flowing conversations.
Multimodal sensory cues – visual, auditory – in conversational settings
support this inference-based, fast turn-taking system.
Visual cues aid speakers in taking turns while talking in person. Auer (2021) took a
multimodal approach to analyse turn-taking, focusing on speakers’ gaze. He
analysed six one-hour recordings of three-party student interactions, containing gaze
data for each conversationalist; other, “maximal” cues were also coded (e.g.: use of
“you” and gaze; naming and gaze; pointing; combinations of cues…). In the majority
(86%) of turn transitions, the participant gazed at, towards the end of the current turn
(before reaching completion point), by the current speaker took the next turn: gaze
alone seems to be a robust signal in next-speaker selection. Whether gaze alone is a
stronger predictor of next-speaker than combinations of gaze and verbal cues (“you”,
naming…), and whether conversationalists rely more on it than projection-based
predictions of completion points remain open questions; but, since gaze signals are
ubiquitous in conversations, they may strongly support – along other sensory and
linguistic cues – turn-taking via the current-speaker-selects-next rule. Mondada
(2007) examined the occurrence of pointing gestures in a corpus of professional,
roundtable meeting recordings (15hours); pointing was coded as a sequence of
preparation-stroke-retraction. Most pointing began before the completion point of the
current turn (“pre-initial turn pointings”), and fully extended at the next turn-initial
position: Mondada’s (2007) example (3) illustrates this scenario, where, using
4
5
question 6.
pointing, the recipient (Laura) anticipated and signaled her (next) turn. Although
looking at a specific interaction that incites pointing (i.e., with maps on a meeting
table), this study suggests that recipients use gestures to support turn-taking: in
roundtable professional meetings, they exploit within-turn pointing to signal imminent
self-selection, to project the current turn completion point. Studies examining casual,
face-to-face conversations also point at the help of gestures in turn-taking: questions
with gestures were answered significantly faster (shorter transition delays) than
questions without gestures, even after controlling for prosody and gaze (Holler et al.,
2018).
Recipients use verbal cues to signal self-selection and take the next turn.
Marian et al. (2021) examined a rare conversational scenario: multi-unit turns where
the first unit repeats the preceding single-unit turn uttered by another speaker (“resaying”). They gathered 30 such cases from different corpora (audio/videos),
languages (English/French/Spanish), interactional settings. In their corpus, re-saying
was used to express understanding of prior talk (of the past speaker) and extend the
current turn: recipients produce this first unit to instantiate their turn (then hold the
floor by adding more units). Critically, to decide when to take turn, speakers make
use of both visual and auditory cues, in a complementary fashion. Participants
discriminated between turn-ends and turn-continuations better in the presence of
audiovisual information than audio-only, while auditory information sufficed for them
to time their response at turn-end; having audiovisual information enabled the early
prediction of next turn (Latif et al., 2018). Visual and auditory signals thus convey
complementary information for turn-taking: for the early prediction of the next turn
exchange and the precise timing of a response at turn end, respectively.
Conclusion
Turn-taking is fundamental to our ability to hold meaningful conversations,
exchange ideas; indeed, people take turns when talking in-person. They rely on
5
question 6.
6
linguistic – stemming from the projectability of TCUs – and multimodal cues to predict
turn completion points, signal and take future turns.
Importantly, a working turn-taking system, although essential, is only one
facet of successful in-person communication.
6
7
question 6.
References:
(not included in the word count)
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620966922
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2009). Contrasting and turn transition: Prosodic projection with
parallel-opposition constructions. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2271-2294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.007
Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2017). Turn Construction and Turn Taking.
Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction (pp. 31111). Cambridge University Press.
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Processing language in face-toface conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses.
Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(5), 1900-1908.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1363-z
Latif, N., Alsius, A. & Munhall, K.G. (2018) Knowing when to respond: the role of
visual information in conversational turn exchanges. Attention, Perception, &
Psychophysics, 80(1), 27-41.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1428-0
Marian, K. S., Malabarba, T., & Weatherall, A. (2021). Multi-unit turns that begin with
a resaying of a prior speaker's turn. Language & Communication, 78, 77-87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.01.004
7
question 6.
8
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the
emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194-225.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the
Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Sjerps, M. J., & Meyer, A. S. (2015). Variation in dual-task performance reveals late
initiation of speech planning in turn-taking. Cognition, 136, 304-324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.008
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T.,
Hoymann, G., Rossano, F., Peter de Ruiter, J., Yoon, K.-E., & Levinson, S. C.
(2009). Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 106(26), 1058710592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903616106
Tanaka, H. (2000). Turn Projection in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction. Research on
Language and Social Interaction, 33(1), 1-38.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3301_1
Thompson, S. A., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2005). The clause as a locus of grammar
and interaction. Discourse Studies, 7(4/5), 481–505.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054403
8
9
question 6.
Appendix
Table 1
Basic Syntactic Structure of Two Syntactically “Regular” Languages
Sentential TCUa
Word Order
English
Turkish
Maya is going to her
friend’s house.
Maya arkadaşının evine
gidiyor.
Subject - Verb - Object
Subject - Object - Verb
Maya -> S
Maya -> S
is going -> V
arkadaşının evine -> O
to her friend’s house -> O
gidiyor -> V
Note. The Turkish sentence is a literal translation of the English sentence.
a
Equivalent to one, complete turn (hypothetical, for illustration purposes).
Decomposition
9