Cover not available
Part of
Eye-tracking in Interaction: Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue
Edited by Geert Brône and Bert Oben
[Advances in Interaction Studies 10] 2018
► pp. 197–232

Chapter 9
Gaze, addressee selection and turn-taking in three-party interaction

In this paper, I argue that gaze behavior in multiparty interaction is essential for addressee selection and for next-speaker selection by current speaker. The two conversational tasks are related, but – at least in longer turns – not identical and should be distinguished analytically. In multiparty interaction, addressee selection by gaze is a non-trivial issue, as most bodily arrangements make it hard or impossible for the current speaker to look at all (intended) addressees at the same time. As a solution to this problem, current speakers alternatingly look at the co-participants they want to address. For the selection of a next speaker, only the current speaker's gaze during the last phase of the turn is relevant.

Keywords: three-party interaction, turn-taking, next-speakership, conversational analysis, addressee selection
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Gaze and turn-taking: A short overview
  • 3.Speaker gaze in three-party interaction: Addressee selection and next-speaker selection
  • 4.Speakers regularly address more than one co-participant simultaneously, although only one of them can be looked at at a time
    • 4.1Loosely structured sequential contexts
    • 4.2Tightly structured sequential contexts
  • 5.The addressee looked at toward the end of a turn constructional unit is given privileged access to the following turn
    • 5.1Micro-negotiations of turn-taking by gaze
    • 5.2Gaze and the timing of turn-transition
  • 6.Why speaker’s gaze is not always strong enough to select the next speaker
  • 7.Discussion
  • Transcription conventions for gaze (the remainder of the segmental and multimodal transcription follows GAT2, see Selting et al., 2011)
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.09aue
References
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T.
(2002) Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566–580.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Carlson, T. B.
(1982) Hearers and speech acts. Language, 58, 332–373.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Ruiter, J. P.
(2007) Some multimodal signals in humans. In I. Van de Sluis, M. Theune, E. Reiter, & E. Krahmer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Multimodal Output Generation (MOG 2007), 141–148.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. R.
(2003) Participation shifts: order and differentiation in group conversation. Social Forces, 81(4), 1335–1381.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1981) Footing. In: E. Goffman, Forms of Talk (pp.124–159). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York etc.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holler, J. & Kendrick, K.
(2015) ‘Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (98). DOI logo.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(2004) A sketch of some aspects of orderly overlap in natural conversation. In: G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp43–59). Amsterdam: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kalma, A.
(1992) Gazing in triads: a powerful signal in floor apportionment. British Journal of Social Psychology 31(1), 21–39.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A.
(1967) Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26, 22–63.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1973) The role of visible behavior in the organization of social interaction. In: M. Cranach & I. Vine (Eds.), Social Communication and Movement: Studies of Interaction and Expression in Man and Chimpanzee (pp29–74). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M.
(1997) Demonstrating recipiency: knowledge displays as a resource for the unaddressed participant. Applied Linguistics 8(2), 85–96.Google Scholar
Lerner, G.
(2003) Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32, 177–201.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F.
(2012) Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. PhD MPI Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
(2013) Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.308–329). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
(2009) Gaze, questioning and culture. In: J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp.187–249). Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696–735.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, Emanuel A.
(1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language (pp.15–21). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Selting, M. et al.
(2011) A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung 12, 1–51.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F.
(2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1), 3–31.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T.
(2015) Conversation is built for two. Paper presented at 14th IPrA, University of Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
Streeck, J.
(2014) Mutual gaze and recognition: Revisiting Kendon’s ‘Gaze direction in two-person interaction’. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From Gesture in Conversation to Gesture as Visible Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon (pp.35.55). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tiitinen, S. & Ruusuvuori, J.
(2012) Engaging parents through gaze: speaker selection in three-party interactions in maternity clinics. Patient Education and counseling 89(1), 38–43.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vertegaal, R., Slagter, R., van der Veer, G., & Nijholt, A.
(2001) Eye gaze patterns in conversation: There is more to conversational agents than meets the eyes. Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 3(1), 301–308.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 21 other publications

Archer, Brent, Jamie H. Azios, Nora Gulick & Jennifer Tetnowski
2021. Facilitating participation in conversation groups for aphasia. Aphasiology 35:6 ► pp. 764 ff. DOI logo
Auer, Peter
2021. Gaze selects the next speaker in answers to questions pronominally addressed to more than one co-participant. Interactional Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 154 ff. DOI logo
Auer, Peter
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 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Auer, Peter, Angelika Bauer & Ina Hörmeyer
2020. How Can the ‘Autonomous Speaker’ Survive in Atypical Interaction? The Case of Anarthria and Aphasia. In Atypical Interaction, ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
Bateman, Amanda
2020. Young children’s affective stance through embodied displays of emotion during tellings. Text & Talk 40:5 ► pp. 643 ff. DOI logo
Blythe, Joe, Fakry Hamdani & Scott Barnes
2023. Tactile engagement of prospective next speakers in Indonesian multiparty conversations. Language in Society ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Brône, Geert
2021. The multimodal negotiation of irony and humor in interaction. In Figurative Language – Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Chinn, Deborah & David Rudall
2021. Who is Asked and Who Gets to Answer the Health-Care Practitioner’s Questions When Patients with Intellectual Disabilities Attend UK General Practice Health Checks with Their Companions?. Health Communication 36:4 ► pp. 487 ff. DOI logo
Dahmen, Josua & Joe Blythe
2022. Calibrating recipiency through pronominal reference. Interactional Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo
Dale, Rick, Gregory A. Bryant, Joseph H. Manson & Matthew M. Gervais
2020. Body synchrony in triadic interaction. Royal Society Open Science 7:9 ► pp. 200095 ff. DOI logo
Degutyte, Ziedune & Arlene Astell
2021. The Role of Eye Gaze in Regulating Turn Taking in Conversations: A Systematized Review of Methods and Findings. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Dell, Nicola, Deborah Estrin, Harald Haraldsson & Wendy Ju
2022. 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces Abstracts and Workshops (VRW), ► pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
Ferrara, Lindsay
2022. Indexing turn-beginnings in Norwegian Sign Language conversation. Gesture 21:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Meng-Chen, Mai Trinh & Zhigang Deng
2023. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION, ► pp. 436 ff. DOI logo
Nishizaka, Aug
2023. Doing inspecting in interaction: seeing the physiognomy of an object. Mind, Culture, and Activity 30:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Rühlemann, Christoph
2022. How is emotional resonance achieved in storytellings of sadness/distress?. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Rühlemann, Christoph & Alexander Ptak
2023. Reaching beneath the tip of the iceberg: A guide to the Freiburg Multimodal Interaction Corpus. Open Linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Stommel, Wyke, Ilona Plug, Tim C. olde Hartman, Peter L.B.J. Lucassen, Sandra van Dulmen & Enny Das
2022. Gender stereotyping in medical interaction: A Membership Categorization Analysis. Patient Education and Counseling 105:11 ► pp. 3242 ff. DOI logo
Tsuchiya, Keiko, Frank Coffey, Andrew Mackenzie, Sarah Atkins, Malgorzata Chalupnik, Stephen Timmons, Alison Whitfield, Mike Vernon & David Crundall
2021. Framing trauma leaders’ request in emergency care interactions. Communication and Medicine 17:1 DOI logo
Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts & Geert Brône
2019. Affiliation in interpreter-mediated therapeutic talk. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 21:2 ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Zima, Elisabeth
2020. Gaze and Recipient Feedback in Triadic Storytelling Activities. Discourse Processes 57:9 ► pp. 725 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.