Cover not available
Part of
Mobile Eyetracking: New avenues for the study of gaze in social interaction
Edited by Elisabeth Zima and Anja Stukenbrock
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 351] 2025
► pp. 132–165

Chapter 5
On the relationship between gaze and the German recipient token hm_hm

 | University of Freiburg
This study examines the interplay between speaker gaze, the German recipient token “hm_hm,” and the Feedback Relevance Space (FRS) in triadic conversations. Our findings underscore the role of speaker gaze in eliciting “hm_hm” tokens: over three-quarters of them were produced by the recipient last looked at by the speaker. However, it challenges previous accounts of the relationship between gaze and recipient feedback (Bavelas et al. 2002) by showing that recipients prioritise the timely placement of “hm_hms” and orient to the FRS — typically located towards the end of the speaker’s intonation phrase — over giving feedback while in mutual gaze with the speaker. This is consistent with the function of “hm_hm” as a continer. The findings of this study contribute to a refined understanding of the relationship between gaze, recipient feedback and turn-taking.
Keywords: recipient feedback, hm_hm, continuer, German triadic interactions, gaze window, Feedback Relevance Space
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on the function of gaze and the placement
    of the recipient token hm_hm
    • 2.1The placement of hm_hm relative to the speaker’s turn
    • 2.2The function of gaze to mobilise recipient responses
    • 2.3The gaze window hypothesis
  • 3.Corpus and methods
  • 4.Results: The relationship between gaze and hm_hm
    • 4.1Description of attested patterns
    • 4.2Quantitative distribution of gaze patterns
    • 4.3Analysis of the temporal placement of gaze-mobilised hm_hms
      • 4.3.1Pattern 1: Timely placement of hm_hm as a reaction to the gaze mobilisation
      • 4.3.2Pattern 1: More time passes between the beginning of mutual gaze and the utterances of hm_hm
      • 4.3.3Pattern 2: The recipient utters hm_hm at the second FRS
      • 4.3.3Pattern 3: The speaker dissolves mutual gaze, and the recipient waits until the FRS to utter hm_hm
  • 5.The placement of hm_hm in relation to gaze and the Feedback Relevance Space
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Author queries
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (38)
References
Auer, Peter and Elisabeth Zima. 2021. “On word searches, gaze, and coparticipation.“ Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 22: 390–425.Google Scholar
Bavelas, Janet, Coates, Linda and Trudy Johnson. 2000. “Listeners as co-narrators.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (6): 941–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. ”Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze.” Journal of Communication, 52 (3): 566–580. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey W. 1981. “A further investigation of the cognitive interference hypothesis of gaze patterns during conversation.” British Journal of Social Psychology 20 (4):. 243–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cathart, Nicola, Carletta, Jean and Ewan Klein. 2003. “A Shallow Model of Backchannel Continuers in Spoken Dialogue.” Proceedings of the tenth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert and Meredyth A. Krych. 2004. “Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding.” Journal of Memory and Language 50 (1): 62–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Kok, Iwan and Dirk Heylen. 2012. “Analyzing nonverbal listener responses using parallel recordings of multiple listeners.“ Cognitive Processes, 13 (2): 499–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delettres, Cécile and Jallerat-Jabs, Britta. 2018. ““Ja Müssen Sie jetzt nix irgendwie aufschreiben?“ — Eine Empirische Untersuchung zur Verwendung von irgendwie im gesprochenen Deutsch”. Diskursive Verfestigungen: Schnittstellen zwischen Morphosyntax, Phraseologie und Pragmatik im Deutschen und im Sprachvergleich, edited by Laurent Gautier, Pierre-Yves Modicom and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter: 229–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dittmann, Allen T. and Lynn G. Llewellyn. 1967. “The phonemic clause as a unit of speech decoding.“ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 (3): 341–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Starkey and Donald W. Fiske. 1977. Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods, and theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ehlich 2007. „Formen und Funktionen von hm: Eine phonologisch-pragmatische Analyse.“ Sprache und sprachliches Handeln, Bd.2: Prozeduren des sprachlichen Handelns. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 273–286.Google Scholar
Gardner, Rod. 2001. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Conversation analysis and recipient behaviour.” The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Carol A. Chapelle: 1086–1094. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Academic Press.Google Scholar
. 1986. “Between and within: Alternative sequential treatments of continuers and assessments” Human Studies 9 (2–3): 205–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness and Charles Goodwin. 1986. “Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word.” Semiotica 62 (1–2): 51–75.Google Scholar
Heldner, Mattias, Hjalmarsson, Anna and Jens Edlund. 2013. “Backchannel relevance spaces.“ In Nordic Prosody: Proceedings of the XIth Conference Tartu 2012 ed. by E. L. Asu and P. Lippus.: 137–146. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge, Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45:1, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howes, Christine and Arash Eshghi. 2017. “Feedback relevance spaces: The organisation of increments in conversation. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Computational Semantics.Google Scholar
. 2021. “Feedback Relevance Spaces: Interactional Constraints on Processing Contexts in Dynamic Syntax.” Journal of Logic, Language and Information 30: 331–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “Notes on some orderliness of overlap onset.” Discourse analysis and natural rhethoric. ed. by V. d’Urso und P. Leonardi: 11–38. Padua, Italy: Cleup Editore.Google Scholar
Jokinen, Kristiina; Furukawa, Hirohisa; Nishida, Masafumi and Yamamoto, Seiichi. 2013. “Gaze and turn-taking behaviour in casual conversational interactions.” ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 3 (2), S. 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 1967. “Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction.” Acta Psychologica 26: 22–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koiso, Hanae, Horiuchi, Yasuo and Den Yasuharu. 1998. An Analysis of Turn- Taking and Backchannels Based on Prosodic and Syntactic Features in Japanese Map Task Dialogs. Language and Speech 23: 296–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1996. “On the “semi-permeable” character of grammatical units in conversation: conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker.” Interaction and Grammar (Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, Sandra A. Thompson, eds.), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 238–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William. 1985. “Speech shadowing and speech comprehension.” Speech Comprehension, 4 (1–3), 55–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morency, Louis-Philippe, de Kok, Iwan and Jonathan Gratch. 2009. “A probabilistic multimodal approach for predicting listener backchannels” Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems. 20: 70–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quasthoff, Uta. 1981. „Zuhöreraktivitäten beim konversationellen Erzählen.“ In Dialogforschung ed. by Peter Schröder and Hugo Steger: 287–313. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Rossano, Federico. 2012a. Gaze behaviour in face-to-face conversation [Doctoral dissertation]. Radboud University Nijmegen.
. 2012b. “Gaze in Conversation.” The Handbook of Conversation Analysis ed. By Sidnell, Jack and Tanya Stivers: 308–329. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. “Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen: 71–93. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Gunthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schutte, W., Stukenbrock, A., and Uhmann, S. 2009. „Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).“ Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. [URL]
Stivers, Tanya and Federico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilising response.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolins, Jackson and Jean E. Tree. 2014. “Addressee backchannels steer narrative development.” Journal of Pragmatics 70: 152–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Nigel and Wataru Tsukahara. 2000. “Prosodic features which cue backchannel responses in English and Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1177–1207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiß. 2020. Blick und Turn-Taking in Face-to-Face-Interaktionen: Multimodale Interaktionsanalysen triadischer Gesprächssituationen mit Hilfe von Eye-Tracking [Doctoral dissertation]. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
Yngve, Victor H. 1970. “On getting a word in edgewise.” Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: 126–157.Google Scholar
Zima, Elisabeth. 2020. “Gaze and recipient feedback in triadic storytelling activities.” Discourse Processes 57 (9): 725–748. DOI logoGoogle Scholar