1887
Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2666-4224
  • E-ISSN: 2666-4232
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Like many other languages, but unlike modern (standard) English, German has a distinct second person plural pronoun (, ‘you guys’), contrasting with the second person singular pronoun (). The second person plural pronoun addresses a turn to more than one, and possibly all co-present participants. This paper investigates turn-taking after such multiply addressed turns, taking as an example information-seeking questions, i.e., a sequential context in which a specific next action is relevant in the adjacent position. It might appear that in such a context, self-selection applies (Schegloff 1992: 122); more than one co-participant is addressed, but none selected as next speaker. In this paper, I show on the basis of spontaneous interactions recorded with mobile eye-tracking equipment that this is not the case and that TCU-final gaze is employed to select the next speaker. The participant not being gazed at TCU-finally is addressed, but not selected as the answerer in next position and may provide an answer in a sequential position after the first answer. The article demonstrates that gaze is an efficient way to allocate turns in the absence of verbal cues and thus contributes to our understanding of turn-taking from a multimodal perspective.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/il.21002.aue
2021-11-22
2022-01-25
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Auer, P.
    (2018) Gaze, addressee selection and turn-taking in three-party interaction. InG. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.), Eye-tracking in interaction. Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue (pp.197–231). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ais.10.09aue
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.09aue [Google Scholar]
  2. (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. 10.1177/1461445620966922
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620966922 [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, P. & Lindström, J.
    (to appear). On agency and affiliation in second assessments. German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction. InJ. Lindström, R. Lauri, A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen Eds. Intersubjectivity in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Pragmatics & Beyond, N.S.).
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Blythe, J., Garnder, R., Mushin, I. & Sterling, L.
    (2018) Tools of engagement: Selecting a next speaker in Australian aboriginal multiparty conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction51(2), 145–170. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1449441
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1449441 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brône, G. & Oben, B.
    (Eds.) (2018) Eye-Tracking in Interaction. Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ais.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brône, G., Oben, B., Jehoul, A., Vranjes, J. & Feyaerts, K.
    (2017) Eye gaze and viewpoint in multimodal interaction management. Cognitive Linguistics28(3). 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0119
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0119 [Google Scholar]
  7. Clayman, Steven E.
    2010 Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication4(2), 161–183. 10.1177/1750481310364330
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310364330 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2012 Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions, Journal of Pragmatics, vol.44, no.13, 1853–1867. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D.
    (2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 translated and adapted for English. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion12, 1–51 (www.Gespraechsforschung-ozs.de)
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Deppermann, A. & Helmer, H.
    (2013) Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit „also“ und „dann“. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft32(1), 1–40. 10.1515/zfs‑2013‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2013-0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Droste, P. & Günthner, S.
    (2021) Enacting ‘being with you’: vocative uses of du (‘you’) in German everday interaction. Pragmatics31(1), 87–113. 10.1075/prag.19030.dro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19030.dro [Google Scholar]
  12. Duncan, S.
    (1975) Interaction units during speaking turns in dyadic, face-to-face conversations. InA. Kendon, R. M. Harris & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction (pp.199–212). The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110907643.199
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907643.199 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ehlich, K. & Rehbein, J.
    (1982) Augenkommunikation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/la.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.2 [Google Scholar]
  14. Günthner, S.
    (2000) Form concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. InE. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (pp.439–468). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219043‑018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219043-018 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2016) Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik44(4), 406–436. 10.1515/zgl‑2016‑0022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2016-0022 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2019) Namentliche Anreden in onkologischen Aufklärungsgesprächen: eine interaktional ausgerichtete Studie zu Formen und Funktionen onymischer Anreden. Online: arbeitspapiere.sprache-interaktion.de/82-susanne-guenthner-03-2019.pdf. (retrievedMay 26, 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M.
    (Eds.) (2014) Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.187
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hayashi, M., Mori, J. & Tagaki, T.
    (2002) Contingent achievement of co-tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze and gesture. InC. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp.81–122). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heritage, J.
    (2012) Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Reseach on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  20. Holler, J. & Kendrick, K.
    (2015) Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(98). doi:  10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00098
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00098 [Google Scholar]
  21. Kendon, A.
    (1967) Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica26, 22–63. 10.1016/0001‑6918(67)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  22. (1990) Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Lerner, G. H.
    (1992) Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology15(3), 247–271. 10.1007/BF00990328
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00990328 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2003) Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society32, 177–201. 10.1017/S004740450332202X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450332202X [Google Scholar]
  25. Link, G.
    (1991) Plurals. InA. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp.418–440). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110126969.6.418
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110126969.6.418 [Google Scholar]
  26. Levinson, S.
    (2016) Turn-taking in human communication – origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences20(1), 6–14. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  27. Mondada, L.
    (2019) Conventions for multimodal transcription. (www.loranzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription)
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Raymond, G. T.
    (2003) Grammar and social organzation: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review68(6), 939–976. 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  29. Robinson, J. D.
    (2020) Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction53(2), 197–222. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398 [Google Scholar]
  30. Rossano, F.
    (2012) Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Unpublished PhD, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Rossano, F., Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C.
    (2009) Gaze, questioning and culture. InJ. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp.187–249). Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511635670.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511635670.008 [Google Scholar]
  32. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G.
    (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language50(4), 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  33. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1968) Sequencing in Conversational openings. American Anthropologist70(6), 1075–1095. 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  34. (1992) To Searle on conversation: A note in return. InH. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), (On) Searle on Conversation (pp.113–128), Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.21.07sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.21.07sch [Google Scholar]
  35. Selting, M.,
    (2009) Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion10, 353–401. (www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2009/px-gat2.pdf).
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Stivers, T.
    (2021) Is conversation built for two? The partitioning of social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction54(1), 1–19. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864158
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864158 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stivers, T. & Rossano, F.
    (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction43(1), 3–31. 10.1080/08351810903471258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471258 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stukenbrock, A.
    (2018a) Blickpraktiken von SprecherInnen und AdressatInnen bei der Lokaldeixis. Mobile Eye Tracking-Analysen zur Herstellung von joint attention. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion19, 132–168. (www.Gespraechsforschung-ozs.de)
    [Google Scholar]
  39. (2018b) Mobile dual eyetracking in face-to-face interaction: The case of deixis and joint attention. InG. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.) Eye-Tracking in Interaction. Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue (pp.80–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ais.10.11stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.11stu [Google Scholar]
  40. (2020) Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactive achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology11(1779) 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01779
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01779 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stukenbrock, A. & Dao, A. N.
    (2019) Joint attention in passing: What dual mobile eye tracking reveals about gaze in coordinating embodied activities at a market. InElisabeth Reber & Cornelia Gerhardt (Eds.), Embodied Activities in Face-to-Face and Mediated Settings (pp.177–216). London etc.: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑97325‑8_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97325-8_6 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tiitinen, S. & Ruusovuori, J.
    (2012) Engaging parents through gaze: Speaker selection in three-party interactions in maternity clinics. Patient Education and Counseling89(1), 38–43. 10.1016/j.pec.2012.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vranjes, J.
    (2018) On the role of gaze in the organization of turn-taking and sequence organization in interpreter-mediated dialogue. Language and Dialogue8(3), 439–467. 10.1075/ld.00025.vra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00025.vra [Google Scholar]
  44. Weiß, C.
    (2018) When gaze-selected next speakers do not take the turn. Journal of Pragmatics133, 28–44. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.05.016 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2019) Blickverhalten des nicht-blickselegierten Sprechers während Korrekturen und Elaborierungen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion20, 1–28. (www.Gespraechsforschung-ozs.de)
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2020) Blick und Turn-Taking in Face-to-Face-Interaktionen. Multimodale Interaktionsanalysen triadischer Gesprächssituationen mit Hilfe von Eye-Tracking. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. (www.verlag-gespraechsforschung.de/2020/weiss.html)
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wittenburg, P., Burgman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H.
    (2006) ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proc. 5th Intern. Conf. Lg. Resources and Evaluation (LREC).
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Zima, E.
    (2018) Multimodale Mittel der Rederechtsaushandlung im gemeinsamen Erzählen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion18, 241–273. (www.Gespraechsforschung-ozs.de)
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/il.21002.aue
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error