Practices in the construction of turns

7/30/2019 Practices in the construction of turns

1/28

Pragmatics:3.427454.InternationalragmaticsAssociation

PRACTICES N THE CONSTRUCTIONOF TURNS:THE'ITC[J''REVTSITED1

Cecilia E. FordBarbara A. FoxSandra A. Thompson

1. IntroductionThisstudy began with a simple question that has been on our minds, indMduallyand collectively, or some time: What are the basic units of talk-in-conversation?Units n conversation must be understood as usable for the construction of jointactivities, ot merely as packages of information to be parsed. Features of turnconstruction re adapted to such functions as displaying responsiveness o otherturnsand making interpretable contributions to an ongoing interactional sequence.Furthermore, iming of speaker onset is crucial to the making of meaning inconversation,hether that onset is produced in overlap, after some gap, or preciselyat the point where a current speaker stops. It has been manifestly clear for sometime that, for the description of the basic units of talk-in-interaction, neither astrictly yntactic/semanticor a strictly prosodic approach to conversationalunits willsufficeby itself (Schegloff 1996); "sentences"and "clauses"are only part of thepicture, ut "tone units" (Crystal 7969;Cruttenden 1986) or "intonation units" (Chafe1987, 988,1992, 7993,1994;Du Bois et al. 1993) are also only part of the picture.The basic conversationalunit must be an amalgam of at least these two types ofunits,but its niche in a developing nteractional context must also play a major partin its construction.An obvious place to turn for discussionof this question is to ConversationAnalysis CA), since this framework has concerned itself intensively with theorganization f turn-taking. In their celebrated and highly influential paper outliningthe practicesunder$ing conversational urn-taking, Sacks et al. (1974) propose amodel n which turns at talk are analyzedas being made up of "turn-constructional

1The authorshave mntributed equally o this paper. We wouuld like to thank the followingpeopleor sharing heir thoughtson someof the issues aisedhere:Robert Arundale,PeterAuer,ElizabethCouper-Kuhlen, Susanna Cumming, Pamela Downing, Candy and Chuck Goodwin,Susanneiinthner,Makoto Hayashi, ohn Hellermann,Robert Jasperson, ene krner, MadeleineMathiot,Harrie Mazeland,Junko Mori, TsuyoshiOno, EmanuelSchegloff,Margret Selting, HongyinTao, ndJohannesWagner.We would also ike to thank Candyand Chuck Goodwin for use of theirvideotapend transcript.


2/28

428 CeciliaE. Ford,BarbaraA. Fox"Sandra . Thompsonunits" (TCUs), a "unit-type with which a speakermay set out to construct a turn"(p.702). The Sackset al. treatment of the notion of TCU placessyntax n a centralposition. Syntacticunits allow for the prediction of possiblecompletion points inadvanceof their arrival and thus contribute to the preciseexchangeof speakership,

with pausesand overlapscarrying nteractional meaning:Unit-types or English nclude entential,lausal, hrasal, nd lexicalconstructions.Instancesf theunit-typeso usable llowa projection f theunit-type nderway,andwhat, oughly,t will take or an instance f that unit-type o be completed. nit-typeslackinghe eature f projectabilityaynotbeusablen thesame ay. Sackst al. 1974:702\

While Sackset al. do not'define'the TCU assyntactically ased, he passage bove,the further discussionof the TCU in that article, and its treatment in subsequentliterature have all strongly mplied a syntactically-basediew of the TCU. This factallowed us to consider the TCU seriously as the basic grarnmatical unit ofconversation hat we were looking for: A unit of syntax, albeit a syntax conceivedin terms of its relevance o turn-taking" (Sackset al. 1974: 721).Furthermore, wefelt that as inguistswe could perhapsprovide nput to a definition of TCU, and thatthat would be our contribution toward answering he questionof what constitutesturn units.However, thingsdid not work out that way.And the reasons hey did not aresignificant and interesting.First and foremost, n looking closelyat possiblecasesofmulti-unit turns, we found numerous contingencies o be in operation as furthersegmentsof talk are produced by the same speaker. n fact, one reason hat Sackset al. did not define a TCU was because t was seenas a unit which is contingentand interactionally achieved,by its very nature alwaysnegotiable:

The turn-unit s of a sort which a) emplop a specificationf minimal izes, ut (b)providesor expansionithina unit, c) s stoppablethough otatanypoint), nd d) hastransitionplaces iscretelyecurringwith it, (e) whichcan hemselvese expanded rcontracted;ll of theseeatures xcepthe irst are oci of interactionaletermination. yvirtueof thischaracter,t ismismnceivedo treat urnsasunitscharacterizedyadivisionof labor n which hespeaker etermineshe unit and ts boundaries,ithotherpartieshaving s heir ask he emgnition f them.Rather,he urn s a unitwhosemnstitutionand boundaries nvolvesucha distribution of tasls aswe havenoted: hat a speakercan alkin sucha wayas o permit projectionof possiblemmpletion to be made tom his talk, fromits start, allowing others to use ts transition places o start talk, to passup talk, to affectdirectionsof talk etc.;and hat their starting o talk, f properlyplaced, andeterminewherehe ought to stop talk. That is, the turn as a unit is interactively etermined.(Sacks t al.,1974:726-7)2

Indeed, for users, participants in interaction, the ultimate 'indefinability' of TCUsis essential to their functionality. Interactants regularly extend, foreshorten,reanalyze, and repair their developing turns in response to contingencies emergentat particular points in particular conversations. It is the fact that TCUs areinteractionally achieved that makes TCUs and turns impossible to precisely define

2 We are grateful o EmanuelSchegloff or bringing his passageo our attention n thecontextof this discussion.


3/28

hactices n the constntctionf nrns 429andpreciselypredict. Rather than a static set of resources o be deployed, TCUsare best understood as ephiphenomena esulting from practices.A secondsource for the difficul ty we had in answering he question of howmany TCUs we found in particular turns involved the role of synta,r in such adetermination. n looking at turns in our database,we were not able to convinceourselves hat syntax was playing a more central role than a range of otherinterrelatedsystemsn projecting turn trajectoriesand possiblecompletion points.This range of factors included constellationsof pragmatic, prosodic and gesturalcues.3Thus, we found it problematic to describe points of possible completionwithout considering the sequential location and the interactional import of anutterance we use the term "pragmatics" o cover these acetsof talk). For example,in (1) below, one of the participant gets up from her seat at the picnic table andsays_gottago (first arrow). l,ooking at the developing turn, we can say that / mightconstitutea complete turn in some imaginable nteractional environment and thatI gotta may also be possibly complete in some contexts (for example, in thesequentialslot ust after an accusationof the sort:Whyareyou leavingme?). But inthe particular sequential ocation of this turn in this conversation,neither I, nor Igotta is possibly complete. It takes a contextual and an interactional notion ofcompletion for one to recognize hat in the present utterance,possiblecompletionwill not be reached until a complement to the verb gotta is produced.That is, howsyntax s heard as projecting possiblecompletion depends n greatmeasureon thesequential ocation and the interactional mport of the utteranceunder construction.

(1)Pam: hh Oh yeahyou'vegottatell Mike tha:t. Uh cuz they

[want that on fi:lm.Car: [Oh: no: herewe p ag(h) [(h)aino(h)o(h)o.hh=Cur: [Hu! huh huh huhGar: =[ [don't thin [k it's that funny.C a r : [ O h : [ : ,

3 Schegloff p.c.) hassuggestedhat the claim that syntax s primary n the wayparticipantsassess ngoingspeech or potential turn ends s supportedby the Sacks t al. (197\ claim that nextspeakers end to start at the ends of syntacticunits; Sackset al. suggest hat the data show thatplaceswhere'next speakers egin (or try to begin)next turns" recur at possiblecompletion points'of'sentences,clauses, hrases, nd one-wordconstructions' p. 721).Sackset al. (197\ providefive exampleso illustratethis claim, but to demonstratet, twofurther stepsare necessary, hich havenot yet been aken, as far aswe know. First, it is necessaryto do a slntematic study of wherenext speakers o come n relative to current speaker's alk, andsecond, t is necessaryo'control for", or factor n, prosody.Basedon evidenceprovided n Ford &Thompson 1996), here s reason o believe hat thosesyntactic oundarieswherespeakers o comeinn will in fact be prosodic boundariesaswell, and that next speakers re orienting to at least theconvergence f syntacticand prosodiccues or timing the location of their starts. f this is so, thenthere would again be no reason o reiS synta( as the primary factor in projectability.At any rate,until such a study has been conducted,we must all remain agnosticon this point.It should be noted that, although Sackset al $nq treat synuDr s the key resource orprojection of upcomingmmpletion, they also acknowledgehe role of intonation in the projectionof turn units (721).And more recently,Schegloff 1988,1996)notes he importanceof 'pitch peaks"in projecting the imminent possiblemmpletion of TCUs in certaincases.


4/28

430 Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompson-->Pam:-->Car: [! gotta go t'the joh: [n before I hear tha[t again.fYou'll like it, you'll really like it.Finally, in our search or TCUs, we discovered hat focusingon units rather than onthe activities that participants are engaged n in constructing alk encouragedus tomake what seemed to be unwarranted binary decisions that glossed over thecomplexityof the actual production of a particular utterance.For example,consideronce again excerpt (1). In the first turn in this excerpt,Pam (responding o a turnwhich is not captured on the tape) encouragesCurt to tell a joke. With theutterance You'll like it, you'll really ike it.(secondarrow), Carney is assuringMikeand Phyllis that theywill enjoy the oke (this passages discussedn detail in section4). When we first approached Carney's turn, for the purposes of a project onconversationalunits, we wanted to ask the question: s it a single-unit urn (that is,does it consist of one TCU), or is it multi-unit turn? The turn appears to containtwo syntactic units; but do they constitute one TCU or two? As we will suggest nsection 4 below, the intonation is built to be exactlyequivocalon this point, and oncloser examination even the syntactic ormulation of the utterance can be seen tobe equivocal on the issueof one unit or two. On grounds such as these,we foundit difficult to answer the question "One TCU or two?" And more importantly, wefound that asking a question about units, rather than a question about how, i.e.,through what recurrent methods,contributionsare shaped,encouragedus to misscrucial aspectsof the architectureof turns. Becauseof experiences uch as this, aswe examined our data it becameclear to us that the question"One TCU or two?"was forcing us to take a step back and considera rangeof basic ssueswhich neededansweringbefore the unit questionscould be addressed. hus, questions egardingthe number of units in particular turns were leading us to new and perhaps morefundamental questionsabout how turns are produced and heard.Going back to Sacks et al. (1974) we could see that the tension we werefinding was there aswell, a tension between he notion of unit and the notion ofpractice . The Sackset al. model employs he notion of unit in order to accountfor projection, a concept which is meant to capture the fact that participants canand do orient to utterancesas having identifiable trajectories, hat is, beginnings,middles, and ends.a And the units which are considered to produce suchtrajectories,at least in the original 1974model, are interpretable (and indeed havebeen so interpreted) as an inventory of structures.sWhile we obviouslyaccept theexistenceof projection, our inquiries have led us to consider the possibility thatutterances can have trajectories without being constructed out of clear units.

a Schegloff 1996) notes that 'from the point of view of the organizationof talk-in-interaction, one of the main jobs grammaror synuu( oes s to provide potential construction-andremgnition-guidesor the realization f the possiblemmpletionpointsof TCUs,andpotentiallyofturnsn p.+0).5 Recent work in CA hasmore clearly articulated the dynamic nature of the units fromwhich turns are constructed.Consider for example he following passagerom Scheglotr 1996):'When the grammarwe attempt o understandnhabitsactually rticulatedalk in interaction...,tsrealization in structured real time for both speakerand recipient(s) s inescapable.f nsentences",nclausesn,and "phrases'should turn out to be implicated, hey will be different in emphasis,andperhaps n kind, ftom the static syntacticobjectsof much inguistic theorizing' (pp. 4-5).


5/28

hacticesn theconstntctionf rums 431Therefore, nstead of searchingout and attempting to define TCUs, we have cometo seeour task as asking and beginning o answer he following questions:What arethepracticesaccording o which participantsconstruct heir co-participation?Whatareparticipantsorienting to in order to locate, situate,and interpret their own andeachother's contributions? What are the projected points of completion? How aresuchpoints treated by speakers and recipients as they arrive? And how aresubsequent ontributions by a same speakerbuilt to be understood elative to priorcontributions?The goal of this study is thus twofold: First, we want to suggest o otherlinguistshat, while it would be natural, givenour training, to adopt the Sackset al.modelwith too strong a focus on units, and questions elated to units, we believethat t is more constructive o start with the Sackset al. model but to focus on theentire range of relevant practices or constructingconversationalco-participation;and second,we want to argue that syntax s but one part of a constellation ofpractices riented to by participants n projecting and shaping urn trajectories.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides anoverview f relevant iterature. Section3 describes he data from which we draw ourexamples. ection4 givesa detailed analysis f particular turns,concentratingon themultiple practices hat are used in the architecture of these contributions. In thissectionwe return regularly to the original questionof whether these contributionsinvolveone or more TCUs. We argue that that question tself, while compelling toour linguistic sensibilities,appealing in its focus on the centrality of syntax, andproductive n that it leads o more basic questions Schegloffp.c.), s not ultimatelythequestionwe need to answer n accounting or what participants n conversationsseem o attend to in their production and responses o turns. In section 5, wediscuss ome of the implications of this work and directions or continuing this lineof research.

2, Relevant literature: Intonation, syntax, gaze,body movementThe construction of spoken discourse involves a complex and manipulablerelationshipbetween grammar and prosody,among other things. One importantresearch radition emphasizes he prosodic unit called a "tone unit" (Crystal 1969;Cruttenden1986),or "intonation unit" (Chafe 1987,1988, 992,1993,L994;Du Boiset al. t993; Schuetze-Coburn 1992, to appear; and Tao 1996), roughlycharacterizable s "a stretch of speechuttered under a singlecoherent intonationcontour" Du Bois et al. 1993).Numerous pitch and timing cueswhich play a rolein shapingprosodic contours are discussedn these works.Bolinger's (1986) complex reatment of prosody,encompassing t leastpitch,rhythm, empo, and amplitude, has alsobeen important to, our own understandingof the diverse,and sometimesconflicting,vocal practicesby which speakersprojecthow their utterancesare going to proceed.His treatment of the issueof prosodicunits, hough not based n an analysisof conversation, choesour shift in emphasisaway rom "what constitutesa 'singleutterance"':

...thequestion f wherea contourendss left open,becausehere s no preciseway odeterminet. Syntactic nsiderationsnter,especially ithcompound r complex ersus


6/28

432 CecitiaE. For4 BarbaraA. Fox,Sandra . Thompsonsimplesentences... Syntacticunctures realsoa factor....Ashe effects f combiningprofiles mntours CEF,BAF,SAT]aremuch hesame ithinclausesndbetweenhem,thequestion f contourextentwill be eft to the ndeterminateotionof whatconstitutesa 'singleutteranoe.'196:277)

A number of linguists are currently conducting research at the intersection ofgrammar and interaction with special attention to prosody. n her work on speechrhythm, Couper-Kuhlen (1992, L993, this volume) gives special attention toconversational sequences and activities, offering researchers in language ininteraction fine examplesof how the detailsof prosodycan be incorporated nto theanalysis of talk. Her findings support the claim that rhythmic integration of oneperson's talk with another's may carry a general interpretation of things goingsmoothly or something being "the matter" or "out-of-the-ordinary" 1992:362), butshe also nsists hat the "interpretation of the moment dependson the type of movewhich they frame and upon the activity within which this move is located." Couper-Kuhlen is thus moving toward the kind of interactionallysituated understandingofprosody that Schegloff (1995) has called upon linguists o provide. Local & Kelly(1986) and l-ocal (1992) also provide models for the use of phonetic detail as asource for understanding urn projection and the opening up and closingof repairwork within a turn's space. Auer (1992) notes and explores the "in-principleexpandability of turns in time," insisting hat such expandability s "not a mere factof interactional structure, but it serves urgent interactional needs" (49). Hedistinguishespossible turn completion points from possible syntactic completionpoints and outlines a variety of ways in which extensions an be realized throughprosody and syntax. n both his 1992essay nd his subsequent etailedstudy of turnextension (1996), Auer's findings resonate with the work of Ford & Thompson(1996, discussedbelow) and with the goals and findings of the current study..However, a central explanatoryresourceused n the 1996study s the informationstatus("thematic relevance")of the additions o possiblycomplete turns rather thanthe interactional motivations for such extensions,which is the focus of our workhere. Ford & Thompson (1996) are also concerned with what aspects ofparticipant contributionsare associated ith completionand turn transition (seealsoOrestrom 1983).Taking the notion of "unit" for granted,and looking at the factorscontributing to a "transition-relevance place" (TRP) in American Englishconversations, hey find that these points are defined by a convergence f syntactic,prosodic, and pragmaticcompletion. Basedon the analysis f the placeswhere nefispeakers actually begin their turns relative to prior turns, Ford & Thompson suggestthat speakers orient to at least these three kinds of input in deciding when atransition-relevanceplace hasbeen reached.Furthermore, syntaxdoesnot appearto be the primary factor, but intonationally complete units seem to select fromamong the many syntactically omplete unitsbeing produced. n other words, Ford& Thompson'sresultscanbe seenasratiffing the understandinghat the "transition-relevanceplace" is the end of a "unit" with a final intonation contour (high rising orlow falling pitch beginning at a pitch peak).They do not, however,consider he rolethat the TCU might play in projecting when such a point is or is not imminent.Before and during the time that linguists have been studying the syntax andprosody of spoken and conversational anguage,conversationanalystshave been


7/28

hacticesn theconstntctionf rum.r 433supplyinga framework for grounding suchwork in practices of social interaction.In fact, the linguistic research related to turn-taking is founded on the work ofconversation nalysis, he Sackset al. account standingas the classicsource on thesubject. With a focus on interactional practices rather than linguistic form,conversation nalystshave dealt with the turn-taking system.In his lectures,Sacks 1992a,b) ouches n numerousplaceson the problemof turn taking, and severalof his published ecturesare specificallyoccupied withissue f turn taking and utterancecompletion Fall L967:2-5).While the emphasisis not on the TCU, one can find reference to "sentences"as the units possiblecompletion s projected.For example,he suggestshat "there are waysof producingand attending utterances such that if a sentence form is used, people can belisteningwhile it is happening, o seesuch hings as: t's not yet complete, t{ aboutto end, t just ended."(1992a:642).In this senso,Sacks'discussion f turns does notdiffer from that ultimately published in Sackset al. (1974). Also, consistentwithSacks t al. (L974), his lectures contain reference o the contribution of intonationto the projection of possiblecompletion (e.g., 1992a:651).The work of Emanuel Schegloff including n particular 1988,1989,1996)hasmade significant contributions to our understanding of the relationships amongsyntax, rosody, gesture,and sequentialaction, aswe note throughout our currentpaper.Schegloff has carefully documented he role of prosody in projecting whatwill count as a place of possible completion, as well as the manner in whichspeakerscan transform places of possible completion by reference to ongoingrecipientactions. Schegloff 1996a discussion f "units", urns, and syntax, ncludesdetail on what a model of syntaxmight look like which is basedon attention to thebeginnings,middles, and ends of TCUs.Jefferson (1973, 1983, 1986) provides a detailed examination of anotheraspectof turn trajectories. Her emphasis is not on TCUs per se, but on themechanisms or projecting turn ends in relation to the precise timing of nextspeakers' verlapping utterances.This body of work is highly relevant to the issueof what TCUs are and to what extent they can be syntacticallyor prosodicallydefined.Work by lrrner (1991, 1996)has provided a view of the "semi-permeable"nature of grammatical units in interaction. Irrner demonstrates, hrough closeinteractionalanalysis, he manner in which the production of syntacticunits may besharedby different participants.He explorescollaborative urn production and theinteractional contexts and consequences f the use of this interactional resource.krner does not specificallyquestion he notion of a TCU, but we believe his workclearlypoints to the need to reassesshe use of such a notion as an unproblematicfoundation or explaining turn transfer.The research of Charles and Marjorie Goodwin constitutes a majorcontribution to the discussionof interactional units. In a masterful demonstrationof the interactive organization of assessments, oodwin & Goodwin (1987) showhow participants hear talk as it is emerging,and what the consequences re ofsyntactic, ntonational, and pragmatic structure for the organization of turns andturn units. Their discussion ncludes a wealth of examples n which projectableaspectsof a turn are confirmed by the time the turn reaches completion. Forexample,conversational participants can be shown to orient to the intonational,syntactic, nd semanticpropertiesof intensifiers ike so and realty n utterancessuch


8/28

434 Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompsonas It was s::o: good. Intensifiers allow for the interpretation of emerging talk asdoing assessment, nd in fact, make it possible or recipients to join in, producingcollaborative assessments f their own just as an intensifier comes to completion.In other words, recipientsproduceassessmentsy makingprojectionsabout speechwhich has not yet occurred (7987: 30), and can orchestrate their actions tosystematicallybring an assessmento a recognizableclose (1987: 33).Not only has this work pointed to the critical role of prosody in theformulation and recognition of turn actions,but theseresearchershave also shownthe importance of factoring n body movement andgaze,now seenas crucial to turntaking in face-to-face communication. In three particularly important studies,C.Goodwin (1979,1981,1995)demonstrates hevariety of interactional actors at workin projecting the ends of turns and in extendinga turn beyond the first location ofpotential turn change ('transition relevanceplace', or TRP hereafter). Goodwin'sresearchsuggests hat turn completion and turn extensionare coordinated throughat least a combination of.gazeand syntax n face-to-face nteraction6.Streeck & Hartge (1992) provide a review of current work on gesture,followed by a detailed analysisof the role of gesture, ncluding posture, handmovement and facial expressionsn a conversationn Ilokano. Their focus s on theuse of gestureat "'transition places', high definition' environments n conversationalinteraction, due to the constraintsof the turn taking system" 138). At such points,potential next speakersusegesture o displayboth intent to talk and alsoa previewof the type of talk they may engage n in the upcoming urn. The work of Streek &Hartge not only provides a clear description of the use of gesture in thisconversationand a basis or further study of these esourcesn that community, theresearch also provides a compelling exampleof the crucial contributions of non-verbal aspectsof interaction to the joint managementof turn taking.The studies briefly discussed n this section have been vital in providinglinguistswith ways of thinking about the relationship betweengrammar and otheraspects of conversational organization. However, we find that neither linguisticstudiesnor conversationanalytic esearchhas esulted n a specificationof the TCU;none of these studieshas placed a primary focus on examining he viability of thenotion the TCU in itself.

3. DatabaseThe database with which we worked included three video-taped face-to-faceinteractions and two telephoneconversations. he participants n these nteractionsare all native speakersof American English,with the exception of one speaker ofwhat appears to be British English.We draw on one particular face-to-face,multi-party conversation in order to illustrate a variety of ways in which turns are

6 Further detailed studyof turn-extension an be found in other studiesby C. Goodwin(1980, 1986a,b,c, 989,1995)and in Goodwin & Goodwin (1996),whereanalyses re givenof bothextended urns that continue beyond irst points of possiblecompletionand turns that designedlyoccur before the first point of possiblecompletion n the speaker'salk, showinghow speakersmaymodiS the emerging tructureof the utteranc heyare producingn responseo what the recipientis, or is not, doing.


9/28

hactices in the constntction of turns 435produced,and how points of possiblecompletion are projected and manipulatedthroughsyntx,prosody, gesture,and gaze.As discussed bove, our initial goal wasto examine he production of multi-unit turns, but as we assembledcandidatecases,we found that we neededto backup and explore the not ion of the TCU itself. In fact, the aspect of the collectionprocesshat we found most revealingwas the difficulty we encountered n findinginstances f TCUs that were isolable, definable, and predictable such that thecriteria or identifnttg one could be applied unproblematically o finding the next.It is this last problem that led us to a very close examination of the practicesemployed n turn construction.Some results of that exerciseare presented n thefollowingsection.

4. Exploration of examples from the databaseIn this section we will be considering the ways in which "contingently achievedconfigurationsof phenomena converge at locations in turns, and how theseconfigurations roject, or declineto project, points of possiblecompletion" (RobertJasperson, .c.).We also considerhow speakersshape heir turns as they talk pastpointsof projected possiblecompletion; at suchpoints,a speakermay use multiplepractices o display the next piece of talk to be clearly a continuation of the priorpieceor to display it as something 'new' (see also Auer 1996, Schegloff 1996,Couper-Kuhlen his volume).As a meansof exemplifytngwhat we have ound to becrucial aspects of turn construction,we will examine approximately 20 seconds(primarily continuous) of a multi-party face-to-face nteraction. We have chosenthesesegmentsof data because hey are rich with utteranceswhich illustrate someof the major practices n the production of turns.TFor each utterance discussed nthis section, we examine aspects of its production that have been shown inconversation nalytic studies o be critical to the coordinationof talk-in-interaction:pragmatics the fitting of talk to its sequentialcontext), syntax,prosody, gaze,andbodymovement.sEach of these s considered or its contribution to the projectionof upcoming urn completion, to the treatment (e.g.,confirmation or manipulation)of pointsof possiblecompletion as hey are reached,and the production of talk pastsuchpoints.As most of our examplescome from one stretch of continuous alk, we firstpresent he passage n its entirety and then discuss ndMdual utteranceswithin it.The conversation rom which this passages taken was videotaped at a backyardpicnic n Ohio, in the early 1970s. he participantsare three married couplesseatedat a picnic table (children and dogs are also present, but do not figure in thisparticular fragment). Before the videotape begins, someone has apparentlysuggestedhat Curt tell a joke, a joke that three of the participants have already

7 On" important resource or turn construction ot taken up in our presentdiscussionsrepair Schegloff, effenon & Sacks1977;Jefferson1974).8 We thank Robert Jaspersonor adviceon the description f prosodic eatures or someof the cases e examinehere.


10/28

436 CeciliaE. Ford,BarbaraA. Fox"Sandra . Thompsonheard (Pam, Carney, and Gary). W" hear four reactions to that suggestion: 1)Pam's Oh yeah yott've gotta teUMike that. Cuz thq want that on film , (2) Carney'sOh no herewego again, (3) Gary's I don't think it{ that funny and (4) Pam's I gottago to the john before I hear that again Much of the talk that follows is directed to-Cury in response to his negative assessment: don't think it's that funny. T\eparJag" begins when the videotape begins, which is not the beginning of theinteraction (please see appendix for a key to transcription):(2)123456789101 1t213I4l5l6I71819202T222324252627?829303 l32333334

Pam:Car:Cur:Gar:Car:Pam:Car:Cur:Phy:Gar:Cur:Gar:Pam:

.hh Oh yeah you've gotta tell Mike tha:t. Uh cuz they[want that on fi:lm.[Oh: no: here we p ag(h) [(h)ain o(h)o(h)o.hh=

[Huh huh huh huh={ [don't hin [k it's hat unny.[ o h : [ ' ,[! gotta o 'the oh:tha[t again.you' p really like it.

[yq do too yWell I [: ,tY-hat'n hadda [beerye:t.[You don'like tthin [k of it!=It

[ehh-heh[ ( h ) g n ( n )Iohehhhhhuhh

[n before I hearI[You'll like it ,[ou laugh like hell you hhuh![ehheh huh

Gar:Cur:Cur:Cur: at's riPhv:Gar:Cur:Cur:Phy:Cur:Gar:Cur:Mik:Cur:Mik:Phy:Cur:

laugh ['t gnythinggit a !ee:r,Ieh-hehheh-heh

[becuz [you didn't t=[eh-heh-heh -[huh-hah-huh![ehh!

[ t nnn.hht[I:a-n'taddaDee [r ye:t.I:c'nIFlt hutthutt huh,[huh-huh[ehhu::n[ -heh-heh [-heh-ha-ha-ha-ha-ah!ah!ahlah![Thatd ri [(h) :g h t.thah:hah:hah:[ (huh!)I hah huh huh, huh huh [hahhuh[hnnnn-hn-hn(h)You wan'anothereer you better(keep aughing).

lrt's start with what appears o be a straightforwardcasewhere speakerprojectscompletion and makes good on that projection, and at a point of possiblecompletion, a next speakerstartsup.(3)

Pam: .hh Oh yeah you've gotta tell Mike tha:t. Uh cuz they


11/28

hacticesn theconstntctionf rums 437[want hat on fi:lm.C:r: [Oh:no: herewep ag(h) [(h)ain (h)o(h)o.hh=Cur: [HuhhuhhuhhuhGar: =I [don't hin [k it's hat unny.C a r : [ O h : [ r ,Pam: [! gottago 'the oh: [n before hear ha [t again.[Car: fYou'll ike it, you' p really ike t.

We are interested n Gary's utterance at the first arrow; I don't think it's that unny.How is this turn projected during its production? Gary's gaze and posture aredifficult to see, as Curt is between the camera and Gury; he seemsto be gazingatCurt, the person whose oke is in question.Gary's turn follows a proposal for aretellingof the joke and one negative response o that proposal,Camey's Oh: no:herewego a(h)g(h)ain. From an abstract syntacticperspective, don't think couldconstitutea well-formed intransitive clause,and,as with the 1 and gotta,discussedfor (1) above,the end of eachword added to the turn could conceivablymark theend of a turn in different sequential contexts. However from a pragmaticperspective,n this specific sequenceof actions,a clauseending after think wouldbe missinga regular feature of utterances n interaction: A display of its relevanceto the prior turns (Sackset al. L974:722).In this particularsequential lot more isprojected or the unit in progress a complement of some sort. The intonation canbe heard to project a similar trajectory: I is producedat a slightly higher pitch thanis don't think, but nothing in the intonation of think indicatespossiblecompletion.The lack of stress on the verb does not project imminent completion, and irb isproducedwith no significant rise or fall. The prosodic delivery of that - the samepitch as the preceding word and with no sound stretch - clearly indicates hat thisthat is a modifier and not a demonstrativepronoun, and henceprosodyand syntaxjointly suggest hat the utterance s not possiblycomplete at that point. There is aslight rise in pitch on fun-, which now suggests pcoming completion. Syntax andprosody hus convergeon -ny as a place of possiblecompletion (it is very difficultto hear whether the pitch comes down on this syllable or whether it stays at thesame evel asTtzn-). nd notice that it is quite near this point of possiblecompletionthat Gary's wife Carney starts up with a response.' You'll like it, you'll realty like it(secondarrow), a response hat goesagainst Gary's assessment nd supports theproposed etelling. In the presenceof overlapping alk, the placement of Carney'sturn relative to Gary's is one of the ways she may be displaying her turn to beresponsive o his talk. Supporting this interpretation,we can see that just as Garyfinisheshis turn, Carney turns her head in his direction and begins her turn.Thus, Gary's utterance, I don't think it's that funny, provides a clear casewheresyntax,prosodyandexpectations asedon sequential lot produce trajectorieswhich converge at the same place. And, in fact, the speaker stops talking at thatplace and another self-selects.t is in exactly his kind of situationwhere we mightfeel comfortable saylng hat a speaker has produced a turn consistingof a singleTCU.


12/28

438 Cecilia E. Ford, BarbaraA. Fo* SandraA. Thompson

Gary

C u r t

\

' (

M i k e

P h y l l i s

P a m Carney

Figure : Carney urns her head and beginsas Gary completes is turn.But there are many caseswhere prosody,syntax,and body movement createwhat appear to be conflicting trajectories see lluminatingdiscussion f this type ofsituation in Schegloff 1996),and there are many caseswhere a speakerspeakspastwhat appears to be a place of possible completion, from a syntactic or prosodicperspective (see Ford & Thompson 1996).When we first examinedsuchcases,wewanted to ask the questions:How many TCUs are in this turn, and how are theseTCUs constructed and connected? n addressing hese issues,we were hoping to

respond o Schegloffs(1996) call for research, s statedbelow:Onebasic askof analysisn thisareas to examinehesuccessionf TCUs hatoccurnturnsand askwhetheror not suchexaminationevealsecurrent, riented o, andinteractionallyonsequentialonstructionalypes. Schegloff996)

However, in order to document "constructional 1pes",we needed irst to establishhow and where TCUs reach possible completion points, and how and where newTCUs begin.To answer hesequestionsentailsa carefulexaminationof the complexwork being done in and through the multiple practicesof prosody,syntax,and bodymovement. The array of turns presentedbelow challengeus to define the notion ofprojection to allow for stronger and weaker possibilities,and to elaborate on theconceptsof syntacticdependenceand prosodiccontinuity acrosssegmentsof turns.Furthermore, thesecasesdisplaypracticesof gestureand gaze hat are also ntegralto turn production. Consider the following utterance in lines 7-8 of the passagepresented n (2):(4) Pam: ! gotta go t'the joh:[n before I hear that again.As discussed bove, n strict syntactic erms, his turn could be completeafter gotta,but not only does its slot in the interactionalsequencemilitate againstcompletionat that point, gotta andgo are producedwithout any terminal-implicativerise or fallin pitch. Further into the utterance, he syntax,projectspossiblecompletion afteriolrn (Subject * Verb of motion + Goal) and the prosody s compatible with thisprojection: The pitch starts mid on 1 and falls until the beginning of.ohn,.The turn


13/28

hacticesn theconstructionf rums 439couldalso reach possiblepragmaticcompletion at ohn, since an announcementoftheactivityof disengagingrom interaction s complete here; concurrently, asPamstarts he utterance, she begins turning to get up from the table. Thus, both herverbaland nonverbal actions are compatible with taking leave of the conversationrather than the initiation of a longer interactional sequence.Furthermore, as theword ohn is reached, Pam has also provided the relevance of her turn to thecontext as an account for her departure. All of these features project that theutterance ould have a completion coincidingwith the end of the main clause.Thefact hat Carneybeginsher turn during the production of ohn (see (2) above), mayindicate hat shehas heard Pam's utteranceaspossiblycomplete(though,asarguedabove,Carney's urn appears to be most directly responsive o Gary's turn).But Pam doesn'tbring her pitch down on ohn; sheproduces he word witha slight ump up in pitch and then holds the pitch level. Thus, while the intonationup to this point has been compatible with upcoming completion, just as oneprojectedpossiblecompletion point is reached, he pitch is manipulated in such awayas to project continuation (Schegloff 1996).And, indeed, Pam speakspast thispoint of possiblecompletion. Furthermore, she is just straddling the picnic benchas she reaches the point of projected possiblecompletion, her body movementcontinuing he turning motion begun during the first clause.Her body movementand ntonation thus produce trajectories hat cross he possible urn boundary.

Gary M i k e

C u r t P h y l l i s

/ - , : \ Carney

Figure l : The locat ion X) in Pam's movementwhen she reaches heword ohn(broken l ine represents rajectoryof cont inuing movement)

The continuation of the utterance is done with continuing syntax (a dependentbefore-clause). t is also produced with prosodic features compatible withcontinuation:There is no break in phonation and the contour is extendedwith adrop in pitch on be- and a further drop on -fore. In terms of the developingsequence f actions,Pam's adverbial clauseexplicitly iesher departure back to theproposal for retelling: Pam wants to visit the bathroom before hearing the jokeagain.The point of this moment-by-moment account is that all of the practices


14/28

440 CeciliaE. Ford,BarbaraA. Fox,Sandra . Thompsondescribedconverge o project that the turn will be over after the NP expressing heGoal, john. But the way Pam producesohn (level pitch) and the features of hercontinuation display that the place of possiblecompletion isn't an actual place ofcompletion; she displays hrough syntax an adverbialclauseconjunction),prosodyon ohn andbefore,and body movement(unbroken continuationof movement) thatshe hasn't finished, and the clausesheproduces urns out to be particularly relevantas a displalng the connection of her announcedand enacted movement to theongoing sequence.Now we could ask the following question: s this utterance composedof oneTCU or two? From the analysiswe have ust given,we would probably want to saythat it is one TCU, extendedby meansof an adverbial clause.But we have foundthis question to be helpful only to the extent that it encouragesus to explore therange of practices by which participants speak past a place of projected possiblecompletion and the activities they achieveby so doing. It seems, n fact, that ananalysisof the number of TCUs in an utterancewill be entirely derivative rom, andsecondary o, an understandingof thesepracticesand activities.A more complex case follows. In lines 9-10 of (2), overlapping with theutterancewe just examined,Carneyproduces wo syntacticallyndependentclauses:(5) Carney:You'll ike t, you'll eallyike t.The first clause has prosodic features hat are compatiblewith either continuationor completion, and there is a slight break in phonation at the juncture between theclauses.Her gaze,however, is held in the direction of the recipients (Phyllis andMike) until she reaches he end of the secondclause.

Gary

C u r t

M i k e

P h y l l i salCarney

Figure l l l : Carney'sgaze as she producesher f i rst t .

As can be seen n (2), Carney,who is Gary'swife, is responding,at least n part, toGary's I don't think it's that furny. The syntax of her turn projects possiblecompletion after the first it, and, as noted above n the discussion f (2), Schegloff


15/28

hactices n the constntctionf ums 441(1996) onsiders his to be a multi-unit turn. The intonation is somewhat ess clear,however:Carney starts the utterance at a mid pitch and holds the pitch levelthrough he (unstressed)verb like.If there were a pitch peak on like, it would beclear hat a place of possiblecompletion would be coming up, but since here is nopitch peak, it is possible hat the speakerwill produce talk past what, viewed onlysyntactically, ould be interpretable as a placeof possiblecompletion.The prosodicprojectionweighs against the syntacticprojection. Thus some, but not all, of thefacetsof the talk converge to project an upcoming place of possible completionafter t. The turn production practicesup to this point are equivocal as to whetherthe end of the clausewill also be the end of the turn.As Carney comes o #, her pitch drops, but not fully, and she maintains herbody orientation. An important pragmatic factor is emerging as she produces thispitch drop: There is no clear response o her turn as it stands so far. Carney issurelymonitoring her recipientsas she nears a projected possiblecompletion point(Goodwin1981;Davidson 1984;Schegloff1996).She hen startsanother clause,onewhich s not syntacticallydependent on the first, but which is clearly related to thefirst by meansof repetition and lexical upgrade with really.There is a slight breakin rhythm at the juncture of the two clauses,and the pitch descent started on itcontinues hrough the secondyou. Finally, shewithdrawsher gazeat the end of thesecond 7.Again, the binary question would be: Is the secondclause a new TCU or acontinuationof the first one? In our view,all of the resourcesare deployedpreciselyto be ambivalenton this question:The syntax s done technicallyas a new clausebutbuilt directly out of the syntact ic rame of the first clause. n fact, the repetition andupgradeachieved n the second clausewould not be hearable as such without thepresence f a first version; so there is a strong symbiotic relationship between thetwo syntactic units. The intonation in the first clause does not clearly projectpossiblecompletion after the object of. ike nor does it clearly rule out such aprojection.The end of the first clausedoesnot come to a terminal fall, but thereis a drop, and the secondclausestarts with a slight drop from the end of the first,suggestinghat the second clause s a continuation of the first. Body posture andgaze are maintained constant throughout the juncture between clauses, alsosuggestingcontinuation. There are thus indications of continuing as well asindicationsof not continuing. An approach o turn-taking which forced us (and theparticipants) to analyze his utterance as either one TCU or two would miss exactlywhat this utterance seems o be accomplishingand the practices hrough which itdoes his: At a point which is compatiblewith possiblecompletion and beyond thatpoint, Carney is able to build further on the sameturn, and, through a variety ofpractices, he fits the new material to its context such that it is interpretable as acontinuation,a repetition, and an upgradeof the prior talk.A somewhatdifferent configurationof practicescan be seen n the followingutterance, ine 11 of (2), with syntax and prosody produced equivocally as toprojected completion, and later material in the turn produced as syntacticallyseparate ut pragmatically,prosodicallyand gesturallycontinuous. n this case, heactionof disagreeingmay at least"weaklyproject" what, for lack of an existing erm,we might call an "account space",a space nto which the turn will continue n orderto produce one recurrent action associatedwith disagreement:


16/28

442 CeciliaE. Ford,BarbaraA. Fox,Sandra . Thompson(6) Curt: You do tooyou aughikehellyouhhuh!Curt, like Carney in our last example, s responding o Gary's don't think it's thatfurny, in this case,with an overt disagreement.Analyzing the syntax, n isolation, scomplicated here. You do could be complete, as could you do too (probably aformulaic retort). But the projection initiated by the prosody does not correspondclearly to either of these syntacticcompletionpoints.Yoa starts airly high and thereis a slight drop on do, and a slight drop from do to too - there is no terminal fall ontoo, nor is there the fall-rise on too. The intonation is thus allowing for theinterpretation that there is more to come. This is compatible with one actionsequencewhich is regularly found in disagreeing urns: A disagreement ollowed byan account for the disagreement Pomerantz 1984;Schegloff 1996).The secondyou is produced at the samepitch as is roo; that is, there is nopitch reset at the beginning of the secondclause.Curt also holds his gaze towardGary across he juncture of the two clauses.Syntactically,he secondclause s doneas independent clause, and pragmatically it provides an account for thedisagreement resented n the first clause.So we can say that the intonation, hepragmatics,and the body movementsare done as continuations rom the first clauseto the second,but the syntax s done as a new clause.What interests us most in this and the other cases s the analytic depth onereachesby taking the TCU questionout of the main focus and concentrating nsteadon the multiple practicesof turn architecture.Answering the question of whetheran utterance is composed of one TCU or two is difficult, because most of theresourcesare deployed as f Curt is continuing; syntaxalone s producedas possiblycomplete. Again, it is our contentionhere that this question s not the most usefulone for our purposes. t has proven much more valuable to ask instead:What arethe many practicesby which participantsspeakpasta place of possiblecompletion,and what are they achievingby so doing? In Curt's turn in (6), he is able to producea disagreementand the typical accountwhich follows such actions.While the syntaxof the first segment s not projecting past the end of the first clause,and the secondaction is expressedas an independent syntacticunit, at the same time, theproduction of the first clause does project continuation in other ways: Throughintonation, gesture, and some sort of weak pragmatic projection of an accountspace.This format allows for the interpretation of the segmentsas separateyetstrongly connected.In the next case, all the features of turn architecture converge, but theconvergence s produced well after the first point where a non-pragmatic, non-contextual notion of syntaxwould predict possiblecompletion. In this utterance,lines 16-17 n (2), Pam joins in the chorusof participants esponding o Gary'sdon't think it's that funry.Recall that Carney started he chorusby cajoling Garythat You'll like it, youll really like it., Curt continued by disagreeingwith him (Youdo too you laugh like hell you hhuh!), and now Pam oins in by giving him a teasinginsult:(7 ) Pam: You don' like it becuzyo u didn't think of it!


17/28

hactices in the constntction of ums 443

Gary

Pam( o f f c a m e r a

F igure lV. Pam's pos i t ion as she

M i k e

Phy l l i s

Carney

del ivers he ut terance n (7).

What is added after a syntacticcompletion point is an adverbial clause.Unlike theformat of (4) above (I gotta go t'the joh:n before I hear that again), the adverbialclause n the present case s producedafter a point where prosodic completion hasnot in any way convergedwith syntacticcompletion. Recall that in case (4), thepitch has descended nto ohn, though a full fall is not ultimately produced. In (7),while we do not have access o the body movementsof the speakeriwho is off-screenat this moment, we do find that neither pragmaticsnor prosody allows forprojectedcompletion at the end of the first clause.All turn-constructionalpractices,apart from a very abstract notion of syntax,project continuation. You is heavilystressed,hroughvolume and pitch.The pitch comesdown on don'and there is nostress n like, producing no projection of possiblecompletion after the direct objectthat is syntacticallyprojected to follow. Furthermore, it is produced at the samepitch as like, so there is no hint of completion-relevant fall or rise. From adecontextualized iew of syntaxwe can say hat Youdon'like it is possiblycomplete(as, one could argue, would be You, You don'). However, given the sequentiallocationof this utterance as a response o someonewho has already said I don'tthink it's hat funny, Pam{ You don' like it shows ts relevance o the prior talk, butallows, again, for a kind of weak pragmatic projection of the more material toexpresshis turnd contribution to the sequence Sackset al. 1974:722). There isevidenceof some orientation to the first clauseas complete in the onset of Gary'slaughter (see line 18 example (2)), but laughter is not necessarilyproduced onlyuponcompletion of turns, overlap being a regular placement or the production oflaughter(Jefferson 1979).So,pragmaticallyand intonationally he initial shape of Pam's urn doesnotproject completion. Like the adverbial clause in (4), a syntactically dependentsegments addedwithout anybreak in phonation,and the pitch on the conjunction,becuz, t least on the syllable cuz, s lower than the pitch on ft. Such a caseweighsagainst he centrality of an abstract syntax for the projection of possible turncompletion.Cases (4) through (7) involved continuations which, regardless of their


18/28

444 CeciliaE. Ford,BarbaraA. Fox,Sandra . Thompsonsyntactic dependence or independence,were produced as continuations of acoherent intonation contour. The next casecontrastswith the previousones n thata second syntactically ndependent segment s produced not only after a point ofsyntacticand intonational completion but alsowith a pitch reset. In this utterance,lines 23-24 of.(2), Gury is responding to the utterance we just analyzed as (7),Pam's teasing nsult You don' like it becuz ou didn't think of it!:(8) Gary: I: a-n'addaeer ye:t. : c'n augh't nythingit a !ee:r.With his gaze and upper body turned toward Pam (off camera), Gary starts theutterance at a fairly high pitch, which he maintains through a-n' adda; the pitchjumps up on the stress d beer,suggesting hat a place of possible completion isupcoming.The syntaxalsoprojects possiblecompletionafter an object NP; so bothsyntax and intonation project that the utterance is possibly complete at beer;Schegloff (1996) also labels this particular utteranceunequivocallyas a "multi-unitturn". But Gary does not produce beer in a completion-relevantway: There is nosound stretch and there is no pitch fall on beer itself. Rather, those prosodicindicators of completion are produced onyet,althoughevenhere the pitch does notfall to a typical terminal low.

M i k e

Ph y l i s

CarneyPam(o f f camera

Figure V: Postureand gaze direct ion hrough Gary's f i rst c lause and intothe start of his second.

With his utterance hearablycomplete at yet, Gary continuesspeaking,withno break in phonation from the prior segmentbut with a slight rise in pitch on /(higher than yet but not as high as the first I;. He maintainshis gazeorientation andbody posture toward Pam through the beginningof this secondclause.While thesecondclause s syntacticallyndependentwith regardto the first, pragmatically hisclauseexpressesan explanation or the first. Furthermore,viewed in its sequentialcontext,Gary's first clause s actuallya repetition of his ast contribution (at the firsttwo arrows):


19/28

(from (2))Cur:Phy:

-->Gar:Cur:->Gar:Pam:Gar:Cur:Cur:Cur:Phy:-->Gar:Cur:

hactices in the constntction of rums 445

[ou laugh ike hell you hhuh![ehhehhuh[pdo too y

Well I [: ,tY-hat'n hadda [beerye:t.=[You donlike itthin [k of i t !=tt

laugh [' t qnythinggit a bee:r,I

I becuzI [g didn'I=[eh-heh-heh- [huh-hah-huh![ehh!

[ehh-hehat's ri [ (h) g n (n) [t nn n .h h[ohehhhhhuhh I

[I:a-n't adda bee [r ye:t.I: c'nt[nh huh huh. huh

Comingafter Pam's teasing urn, and with Gary's gazeand posture displayingPamto be his primary recipient, this repetition is presentedas a response.The reuse ofthe exact samewords, though with a somewhatdifferent prosody, comesacrossasexpressing omething ike "I just told you the response o that" (a more detailedprosodic analysis s called for here, but the overlapping talk precludes acousticmeasurement). The fact that the clause is presented as a second doing iscompatible, we believe, with the weak projection of some continuation, acontinuation that would go beyond repetition to add a further contribution. Ininformation terms, the repetition presentsbackgroundor given nformation, a statusthat can be understood as setting up for a piece of new information.Whether this turn is composedof one TCU or two is again a difficult matter.The practicesof synttrxand intonation allow for possiblecompletion atyet (althoughearlier in the turn, beer, or some NP, was projected as a place of possiblecompletion); but the fac,t hat the first segment s a repetition may introduce a kindof pragmatic projection beyond ts completion, arguably orming a kind of complexTCU composed as Repetition + Further Contribution. The second clause issyntactically ndependent, which could indicate that it is not a continuation of thefirst clause. This is reinforced by the pitch reset at the beginning of the secondclause,but that reset is very slight. Gaze, body posture, and phonation remainsteady,without break. While one could argueon the basisof thesefacts that Guryhasproduced a multi-unit turn, that is, a turn in which there are two TCUs, suchan analysis, if not done carefully, could ignore the complexity of how Garyformulates this contribution. For example, n addition to missing he complexitiesof the continuation, such an analysiswould glossover the fact that in the initialclause,both syntaxand intonation project possiblecompletion at beer,except thatin finishing the word beer, Gary does not produce beer vith intonation compatiblewith completion. It is only as he produces et that he drops his pitch and lengthensthe vowel of yet.Furthermore, an analysis ocusingon TCUs would also fail to distinguish heshapeof Gary's utterance in (8), in which there is continuous phonation acrossaclause uncture, from a case ike Mike's turn in (9) (below, taken from later in thesameconversation).Here more constructionalpracticesare deployed o format two


20/28

446 Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, Sandra A. Thompsonconsecutive egmentsas separate:The phonation s not continuous,and pitch isreset at a higher level at the beginningof the secondclause:

(e)Curt:Curt:Curt:Mike:Curt:

He:y. Wherec'n I getar:,uh, 'memberthe old twennythreeModel T spring,(0.s)Backspring't ameup like that,(1.0)Dju know what I'mwhatchumean,Wh'r c'n I geto:ne.

[talk what I'm talkin a [bout,[Ye:h, [I think- I know

Gary: [I knowuh---> Mike: [Lrmmeaska guyat work. He'sgotta unch 'oldclunkers.In this passage,Curt is askingMike where he can get a particular kind of spring fora car. Mike's answer,at the arrow, looks a bit like Gary's utterance n (8): It is donesyntacticallyas two independent clauses;pragmatically, he secondclauseprovidesan explanation of the first; the first clausecomes o possiblecompletion with a fallin pitch; and the second clause startswith a pitch reset. But Mike's utterance isquite different from Gary's n other ways:The pitch fall on work is much lower thanon Gary'syet, and the pitch reset on Mike's He's is much higher than on Gary's .LIn fact, the pitch on He's appears o be higher than on Lemme and could easilybecharacteristic of a turn-beginning (see "full" vs. 'partial' reset,Couper-Kuhlen thisvolume). Moreover, in Mike's utterance, here is a break in phonation at the clausejuncture.

Related to these differences n production format are differences in theactions being performed by the turn segments:Mike is initiating a change in thedirection of the talk, whereas Gary was contributing to the ongoing sequence.Looking at (10), below, we see that in Mike's next utterance, he corrects thecharacterizationoM clunken (not highlyvalued cars)to a Cord (highly valued car),and he subsequently revises that to two Cords (first arrow) and later very original(second arrow). The production of these revised characterizations involvescoordination with Curt, whose ole, formerly asquestioner,s beingconstructednowas that of a recipient of Mike's telling, a telling which leads nto a story about theman with the Cords:(10)

Mike:Gary:Mike:

Mike:Curt:

flrmme aska guyat work. He'sgottabuncha'oldclunkers.Y'know Marlon Liddle?(0.2)Well I can't say hey'reol'clunkershe'sgottaCg:rd?(0.1)Ttvo C.o:rds,(0.7)IAnd[Not original,


21/28

Practicesn the constntction f turns 447(0.7)

Curt: Oh::: eall b/?Mike: [Yah. Ve(h)ryo{gi(h)nal.Curt: oAwhhareyou shittin m[e?((continues with identification of Cord owner, description of Cords,and story))

The point of this added interactional sketch or our current concerns s that Mike'sproduction of two clauses n (9) in a slightly different manner than Gary's in (8) isassociatedwith distinct interactionalwork. If we analyzedboth Mike's and Gary'sutterancesas two-TCu turns, which is plausibleon a number of grounds, hen wewould not capture the hearable and consequentialdifferences n their productionformats,differences hat are related to the different interactional functions of eachturn in its sequentialcontext.An analysiswhich focuseson the multiple practicesofturn production rather than on isolatingunitsprovidesa richer basis or a functionalgrammarof interaction.Our final example,also aken from later in the conversation,offers a furthercontrastwith (8) and (9). (8) and (9) involve secondclauseswhich are syntacticallyindependentand initiatedwith pitch reset. n (11), the speaker,Gary, goespast apoint which syntactically and prosodically constitutes projected and confirmedcompletion. He then adds what would traditionally be seen as a syntacticallydependent structure. Features of pragmatics,prosody, and gesture (in this caserecipient gesture) figure in the extension of the turn. Just before this utterance,Gury has askedCurt for a beer,but Curt displaysno recognition of Gary's turn and,instead of responding, folds his arms on the picnic table, between Gary and thebeer. Gury re-initiates his request for a beer with this utterance:(11) Gary:Bartenderowabout beer.Whileyou're ettinhere.

Gary

o e e

Figure Vl: Posi t ionsof the part ic ipants nd the beer.

The turn starts with a summons o Curt (Bartender),which in itself is interpretableas possibly complete, although preliminary to some other action (see Schegloff


22/28

448 CeciliaE. Ford,BarbaraA. Fox,Sandra . Thompson1980). Part way through BartenderCurt turns to look at Gary, so the summons hassucceededn getting Curt's attention. It alsoservesasan advance ormulation of therole that Curt could be playing in response o the utterance, hat is, alcohol server.Prosodically and syntactically,how about a beer allows for the interpretation ofpossible completion at an NP in the position that beer is produced, and thatprojection is made good on by a fall in pitch in the production of beer.Pragmatically, however, this may const itute a kind of 'monitor space' (Davidson1984), a space "in which [a speaker] can examine what happens or what does nothappen there for its acceptance/rejectionmplicativeness" 1984: 717).It may alsobe the case hat accounts egularly follow calls or recipient action, although to ourknowledge this has not been systematically tudied. Gary's first clausecould thuscreate a pragmatic projection of an account space,as discussed arlier with regardto example(6).

Clearly, however, recipient work is shaping the trajectory of Gary's turn(Goodwin 7979,1981).During the requestsegmentof the utterance how about abeer), the recipient, Curt, looks down and unfolds his arms, in a somewhatexaggeratedmanner, possibly displayingsurprise or annoyance.He then begins toreach for a beer. At this point, althoughGary's utterance hascome to completion,and the request it articulated has achieved he result it sought,Gary speaksagain,adding the syntacticallydependentclauseWiIe you'resettin here.While s producedat a slightly ower pitch thanbeer, and the whole clausecontinuesdown in pitch andvolume. Pragmatically,Gary's addition is interpretable as gMng an account ratherthan merely expressinga temporal adjunct: Gury is drawing attention to the factthat Curt is not only closer to the beer, betweenGary and the beer, but he is alsothe host of the picnic, thus the banender.e he fact that Curt has displayed hroughgesture some reaction to Gary's request beyond simple compliance providesevidence that Gary's extension of his turn is prompted, at least in part, by hisrecipient's immediate response.That directives and requests are interactionallysensitive moves is attested in the literature on conversationand pragmatics (e.g.,Davidson 1984;Brown & Irvinson 1987).This utterance further illustrates the complexity of the practices by whichturns are constructed.Projections hrough intonation and syntaxconverge o locatethe end of.beer as a place of transition relevance.And yet the speaker goes on,speaking in a way that builds his new contribution prosodically,syntactically,andpragmatically as "more of what I was saylng before". The "more" that is addedconstitutesa kind of account or his request,an account hat may in fact have beenexpectableafter such a call for recipient action, and the addition is, furthermore,responsive o recipient (Curt's) behavior.What we have examined n this section are turns most of which could beanalyzedwith respect o the number of TCUs they contain.Basedon closeattentionto the production of these turns, we have shown that projection of possiblecompletion is done not through syntax alone but through practices nvolving thefitting of a contribution to its context of action (pragmatics), hrough prosody,bymeans of the gazeand body movements hat accompany erbalization,and through

9 See Ford (1993),and Ford & Mori (1994) or discussion f final adverbialclauses saccounts.


23/28

hactices n theconstntctionf ums 449the monitoring of recipient behavior. We have argued that the crucial contingencyof the system as it is embodied in these individual instances requires that theprojection n operation at any point be continuously evisable,even to the extentthat an already completed turn can be retroactively reated as unfinished throughthe ormulation of further talk with featuresof continuation.Thus projection createsa manipulable potential end point, a provisional and negotiablegoal that can beconfirmedor manipulated through the samepractices hat produced it in the firstplace. To provide an account for the architecture of turn production, we havedistancedourselves rom a binary question regarding he status of a segmentas aTCU. This distancehas n the end provided us with a closerview of the processesusedby co-participants n constructing heir contributions.

5. ConclusionsWe startedthis investigationby obsewing that our attempts to determine what thebasicmake-upwas of 'conversationalunits'were complicatedby three factors:(1)TCUs are emergent and thus cannot be pre-defined;(2) TCUs have been seenasprimarily syntactic units with certain kinds of intonational contours, but we havefoundthis to be a problematic account; 3) trying to identi fy TCUs in the data yieldsonly a partial account of what is actually going on in the interactions we areobsewing. n trying to understandconversational ontributions n terms of TCUs orany other unit, then, we were confronted with practices that form multipleconstellations f convergence nd divergence n turn construction.And while syntaxplaysa role in turn construction,syntacticunits are alwaysproducedwith intonation,in particular contexts, embodlng specific local actions, and, in face-to-facecommunication,coordinatedwith non-verbalbehavior.Thus,whereas he TCU hasbeen conceivedof as a primarily syntacticunit, we would arguethat intonation andgestureare just as implicated in the nomination of points of possiblecompletion,with pitch peaks, or example,providing an alert to recipients hat they should nowattend o syntax or possible urn completion.Furthermore,we find numerouscasesin which, instead of clear cases n which syntax, prosody, gesture, and actionpredictablyconverge to form unequivocalunits, even emergent ones, an array ofcombinationsare produced,which are open to manipulation of varioussortsas theyare being built. Indeed this is not surprising,as conversationanalytic scholarshipsince 1974 has pointed strongly in this direction (section 2, above), and such asystem, ne that involvesmultiple practicesand is open to constant evision, s well-adapted to the moment-by-moment contingent nature of co-participation inconversation.The issueswe haveaddressed ere arebasedon a studyof a setof AmericanEnglish conversations,but they are obviously consequential or the study of co-participation in other languagesas well. There is every reasonto believe that thepracticeswhich havebeen described or Englishmay alsobe found in conversationsamong people speaking other languages,but the specific ways in which thesepracticesare deployedmay well differ. We see a fruitful avenueof research n thecontinued investigation of turn construction practices in languages other thanEnglish, examples of which can be seen n Selting (1987, his volume); Streeck &Hartge (1992); Auer (1992,1993, his volume); Ford & Mori (199a); lrrner &


24/28

450 CecilinE. Ford,BarbaraA. Fox,Sandra . ThompsonTakagi (1995);Tao (1996),andSchuetze-Coburnto appear),amongothers. n fact,the reexamination of the TCU that we have begun in the present paper is beingnicely applied to Japanese urn construction n recent researchby Hayashi;Mori &Takagi (1995).

In our analysiswe have tried to deconstruct urns into their compositepartsto ascertain he role of each of them: Prosody,grammar,pragmatics,and non-verbalmovements. We have come to understand hat both analystsand participants mustbe accountable or all these contributions(and probably othersaswell) at all timesfor constructing and interpreting, thus doing, co-participation n talk-in'interaction.We have come to see he notion of a conversational nit, in other words, as a glossfor crucial aspectsof the turn-buildingprocess.Thinking in terms of 'units' seemedto allow us to miss building an account of what people are doing in interaction,since hesevarious practices hat we have considered, yntactic, ragmatic,prosodic,gestural, can be drawn upon in a wide variety of ways to frame conversationalactions as nearing, or not nearing, completion, and thus displalng participants'understanding of whether or not it is someoneelse's urn to talk. We hope to haveshown how these practicescan be understoodas actionson the part of participantsworking together to achieveco-participation n conversation.We alsohope to haveoffered a necessary corrective to unquestioning generalizations about thefundamentally syntactic nature of turn building, generalizations hat seem to havebecome entrenched in the CA and interactional linguistic literature since theappearance of Sackset al. in 1974.We would strongly suggest hat researchersinterested in turns and turn-taking must approach the analysisof turns with aninformed respect or the complex arrayof practices hrough which contributions areshaped and revisedwithin the contingencies f talk-in-interaction.

Appendix: Transcription symbolsSymbol(.)(0.3)hhhrhi-tsheSHE"sheoshe:,)

InterpretationA short, untimedpauseA timed pauseAudible breathHyphen ndicates soundcut offLatching, ush nto next urn or segmentBrackets ndicate he onsetof overlapProminentstressHighervolume han surroundingalkl.owervolume han surrounding alkSoundstretchEnding, ow falling, ntonationHigh rising ntonationIntermediatentonationcontours:evel,slightrise,slight (fall

ReferencesAuer, Peter (1992) The neverendingsentence:Rightrvard expansion n spoken German. In M.Kontra & T. Varadi (eds.),Studiesn spoken anguages: nglish,German,Finno-Ugric.Budapest:Linguistics nstitute/Flungarian cademy f Sciences,p. a1-59.


25/28

Practicesn the constntction of tunns 45 LAuer,Peter (1996)On the prosodyand syntaxof turn-continuations.n E. Couper-Kuhlen& M.Selting eds.),hosody in conversatioin. ambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.Bolinger,Dwight (1985) Intonation and its parts: Melody in spokenEnglish. Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress.Brown,Penelope& StephenC. ,evinson (1987)Universalsn language sage: olitenesshenomena.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.Chafe,Wallace (1987)Cognitiveconstraintson informationflow. In R.Tomlin (eA.),Coherence ndgroundingn discourse. msterdam/Philadelphia:ohn BenjaminsPublishingCompany, p.2t-5t.Chafe,Wallace 1988)Linking intonationunits n spokenEnglish. n J. Haiman& S.A Thompson(eds.),Clausecombining n grammarand dbcourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:ohn BenjaminsPublishing .ompany, p. I-27.Chafe,Wallace (1992) Intonation units and prominencesn English natural discourse.Proceedingsof the IRCSWorl


26/28

452 Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, SandraA. Thompson& S.A. Thompson (eds.), nteractionand grammar.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.Fox, Barbara A, Robert Jasperson Makoto Hayashi 1996) Resources nd repair: A cross-linguisticstudyof the syntactic rganization f repair. n E. Ochs,E. Schegloff& S.A Thompson(eds.), nteraction and Grammar. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.Goodwin,Charles 1979\The interactive onstruction f a sentencen naturalconversation.n G.Psathas ed.),Everydayanguage:Sndies n ethnomethodologt. ew York: Irvington.Goodwin, Charles 1980)Restarts, auses nd the achievement f a stateof mutual gazeat turnbeginning.Sociological nquiry 50: 272-302.Goodwin, Charles 1981)Conversational rganization:nteractionbetween peakers nd hearers.NewYork: AcademicPressGoodwin,Charles 1986a)Audiencediversity, articipation nd nterpretation.Text6.3:283-316.Goodwin,Charles 1985b)Beweenandwithin:Alternative reatmens f continuers ndassessments.Human Sndies9:205-17.Goodwin, Charles (1986c)Gestureas a rexource or the organizationof mutual orientation.Semiotica 2.1D: 29 49.Goodwin, Charles (1989)Turn constructionand conversational rganization. n B. DeMn, L.Grossberg, B.J. OKeefe & E. Wartella, (eds.), Rethinking communication,Vol. 2, Paradigmexemplars. ewburyPark: SagePublications, p. E8-102.Goodwin,Charles 1995)Sentence onstruction ithin nteraction.n U.M. Quasthoff ed.),Aspectsof oral communication.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 198-219.Goodwin, Charles 1996)Transparent ision. n E. Ochs,E. Schegloff& S.A Thompson eds.),Interaction and Grammcr. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Goodwin, Charles& Marjorie H. Goodwin (1986)Gestureand mparticipation n the activity ofsearching or a word.Semiotica 2.12:51-75.Goodwin, Charles& Marjorie H. Goodwin (1987)Concurrentoperations n talk: Noteson theinteractive organizationof assessments.PRA Papers n hagmatics l.l. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, p. 1-54.Hayashi,Makoto, JunkoMori & TomoyoTakagi(1995)Emergentnaruref nms-at-talk: heliminaryobservations f nrn constructionn lapanese onversationPaperpresented t the Linguistic Societyof America Summer nstitute,Albuquerque,New Mexim, July.Jefferson,Gail (1973) A case of precision iming in ordinary conversation:Overlapped ag-positionedaddress erms n closingsequences.emiotica : 47-96.Jefferson,Gail 1974)Error correctionas an interactional esource. anguagen Society : 181-9Jefferson,Gail (1979)A technique or inviting aughterand ts subsequent cceptance/declination.In G. Psathas ed.),Everydayangtage:Srudiesn ethnomethodologt.ew York: Irvington, pp.79-96.Jefferson,Gail (1983)Noteson someorderlinessesf overlaponset. n V. dUrso andP. ronardi(eds.),Discourse natysband natural hetoic. Padua:Cleup,pp. 11-38.


27/28

hactices in the constntction of turns 453Jefferson, ail (1984)On the organization f laughter n talk about roubles. n J.M. Atkinson &J. Heritage (eds.),Stntctures f SocialAction. C-ambridge: :mbridge University Press,pp.3a6369.Jefferson, ail (1985)Notes on'latency' in overlaponset.HumanSndies9: 153-183.I-erner,Gene (1991) On the syntix of sentences-in-progress.angtage n Society20.3:ML-58.Irrner, Gene (1996) On the 'semi-permeable'characterof grammaticalunits in conversation:Conditional entry into the turn spaceof another participant. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff & S.AThompson eds.), nteractionand Grammar. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.Lrner,Gene & Tomoyo Takagi (In press)On the placeof linguistic resourcesn the organizationof talk-in-interaction: co-investigationf EnglishandJapaneserammatical ractices.ournalofhagmatics.[,ocal,John (1992)Continuing and restarting. n P. Auer & A De Luzio (eds.),Thecontefiualizationof langtage.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: ohn BenjaminsPublishingCompany.l,ocal, John & J. Kelly (1985) Projection and 'silences':Notes on phonetic and conversationalstructure.Human Srudies : 185-204.Ochs,Elinor (L979) Transcription as theory. n E. Ochs and B.B. Schieffelin eds.),Developmentalpragmatics. ew York: AcademicPress, p.22l-301.Orestrom,Bengt (1983) Tum taking n Englishconversation und Studies n English 66. Lund: CWLGleerup.Pomerantz, Anita (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments:Some features ofpreferred/dispreferredurn shapes.n J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage eds.),Stntctures f SocialAction,pp.57-101.Sacks,Harvey (1992a)Lectureson conversanon. olume 1. Oford: Blachrell.Sacks,Harvey (I992b) Lectureson conversarron. olume 2. Odord: Blaclnvell.Sacls, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff & Gail Jefferson (1974) A simplest sptematics for theorganizationof turn-taking for conversation. anguage5O.4: 96-735.Schegloff,Emanuel (1979) The relevanceof repair to synta,r-for-conversation.n T. Giv6n (ed.),Syntax nd Semantics 2: Discourse nd Slntax. New York: AcademicPress,pp. 261-88.Schegloff,Emanuel (1980) Preliminaries o preliminaries:Can I askyou a question?SociologicalInquiry 0:104-152.Schegloff, manuel (1988)Discourseasan interactionalachievementI: An exercisen conversationanalysis. n D. Tannen (ed.), Linguistics n contut: Connectingobseryationand understanding.(Advances n DiscourseProcesses XIX.) Nonvood,NJ: Ablex, pp. 135-158.Schegloff, Emanuel (1989) Body torque. Paper presented at the American AnthropologicalAssociationMeeting, November.New Orleans.Schegloff,Emanuel (1995)Reflections n Sudying ntonation n Talk-in-Interaction. aperpresentedat the American Association or Applied LinguisticsMeeting, March, ,ong Beach.Schegloff, Emanuel (1996) Turn organization as a direction for inquiry into grammar and


28/28

454 Cecilia E. For4 BarbaraA. Fox, SandraA. Thompsoninteraction. In E. Ochs,E. Schegloff& S.A Thompson eds.),Interaction nd Grammar.Cambridge:C-ambridge niversity Press.Schegloff,Emanuel, Gail Jefferson& HarveySacks 1977)The preference or self-correction n theorganization fo repair in conversation. anguage53:361-82.Schuetze-C-oburn,tephan 1992)Prosodicphraseasa prototype.hoceedingsof the IRCSworkshopon prosody n natural speech.University of Pennsylvania, ugust, 1992.(Institute for CognitiveResearchReport), pp. /2-37.Schuetze-Coburn, tephan To appear)hosody,grammar,and discourseragmatics:Organizationalprinciplesof information low in German conversational anatives.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: ohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany.Schuetze-Coburn, tephan,Marian Shapley& ElizabethG. Weber(1991)Units of intonation indiscourse:A comparisonof acousticand auditoryanalpes Language nd Speech 4:207-234.Streeck,Jtirgen & Ulrike Hartge Ggn) Gesturesat the transitionplace. n P. Auer & A di Luzio(eds.), The Contarualization of Langtage. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: ohn Benjamins PublishingC-ompany,p. 135-157.Tao, Honryin (1996)hosdic, grammatical" nd discourseunctionalunits n Mandain conversation.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: ohn BenjaminsPublishingCompany.

Practices in the construction of turns

Documents

Transcript of Practices in the construction of turns