Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp.154–182

Gaze selects the next speaker in answers to questions pronominally addressed to more than one co-participant

| University of Freiburg, Germany
Like many other languages, but unlike modern (standard) English, German has a distinct second person plural pronoun (ihr, ‘you guys’), contrasting with the second person singular pronoun (du). 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.
Keywords: gaze, turn-taking, current speaker selects next, turn allocation, pronouns of address, eye-tracking
Article outline
  • 1.Second person pronouns, gaze and next speaker selection
  • 2.Quantitative results
    • 2.1Data
    • 2.2Methods
    • 2.3Results
  • 3.First and second answers after ihr-questions
  • 4.Simultaneous answers to ihr-questions
  • 5.Negotiating speakership in delayed responses
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 22 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21002.aue
References (48)
References
Auer, P. (2018). Gaze, addressee selection and turn-taking in three-party interaction. In G. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.), Eye-tracking in interaction. Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue (pp. 197–231). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P. & Lindström, J. (to appear). On agency and affiliation in second assessments. German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction. In J. Lindström, R. Lauri, A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Intersubjectivity in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Pragmatics & Beyond, N.S.).
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 Interaction 51 (2), 145–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G. & Oben, B. (Eds.) (2018). Eye-Tracking in Interaction. Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., Oben, B., Jehoul, A., Vranjes, J. & Feyaerts, K. (2017). Eye gaze and viewpoint in multimodal interaction management. Cognitive Linguistics 28 (3). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2010. Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication 4(2), 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Interaktion 12 1, 1–51 ([URL])
Deppermann, A. & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit „also“ und „dann“. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32 (1), 1–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Droste, P. & Günthner, S. (2021). Enacting ‘being with you’: vocative uses of du (‘you’) in German everday interaction. Pragmatics 31 (1), 87–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S. (1975). Interaction units during speaking turns in dyadic, face-to-face conversations. In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction (pp. 199–212). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehlich, K. & Rehbein, J. (1982). Augenkommunikation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, S. (2000). Form concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (pp. 439–468). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 44 (4), 406–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Namentliche Anreden in onkologischen Aufklärungsgesprächen: eine interaktional ausgerichtete Studie zu Formen und Funktionen onymischer Anreden. Online: [URL]. (retrieved May 26, 2020).
Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M. (Eds.) (2014). Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayashi, M., Mori, J. & Tagaki, T. (2002). Contingent achievement of co-tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze and gesture. In C. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 81–122). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Reseach on Language and Social Interaction, 45 (1), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holler, J. & Kendrick, K. (2015). Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (98). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26 1, 22–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology 15 (3), 247–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32 1, 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Link, G. (1991). Plurals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 418–440). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication – origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20 (1), 6–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription. ([URL])
Raymond, G. T. (2003). Grammar and social organzation: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68 (6), 939–976. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2020). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53 (2), 197–222. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Unpublished PhD, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.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
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70 (6), 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), (On) Searle on Conversation (pp. 113–128), Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10 1, 353–401. ([URL]).
Stivers, T. (2021). Is conversation built for two? The partitioning of social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54 (1), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1), 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Interaktion 19 1, 132–168. ([URL])
(2018b). Mobile dual eyetracking in face-to-face interaction: The case of deixis and joint attention. In G. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.) Eye-Tracking in Interaction. Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue (pp. 80–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactive achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology 11 1(1779). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. In Elisabeth Reber & Cornelia Gerhardt (Eds.), Embodied Activities in Face-to-Face and Mediated Settings (pp. 177–216). London etc.: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiitinen, S. & Ruusovuori, 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
Weiß, C. (2018). When gaze-selected next speakers do not take the turn. Journal of Pragmatics 133 1, 28–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Blickverhalten des nicht-blickselegierten Sprechers während Korrekturen und Elaborierungen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 20 1, 1–28. ([URL])
(2020). Blick und Turn-Taking in Face-to-Face-Interaktionen. Multimodale Interaktionsanalysen triadischer Gesprächssituationen mit Hilfe von Eye-Tracking. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. ([URL])
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
Zima, E. (2018). Multimodale Mittel der Rederechtsaushandlung im gemeinsamen Erzählen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 18 1, 241–273. ([URL])
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Rühlemann, Christoph
2024. Gaze alternation predicts inclusive next-speaker selection: evidence from eyetracking. Frontiers in Communication 9 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
Kendrick, Kobin H., Judith Holler & Stephen C. Levinson
2023. Turn-taking in human face-to-face interaction is multimodal: gaze direction and manual gestures aid the coordination of turn transitions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 378:1875 DOI logo
Dahmen, Josua & Joe Blythe
2022. Calibrating recipiency through pronominal reference. Interactional Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 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.