Elsewhere (see Definition of Conversation) we have noted several characteristics of conversation, such as:

• no predetermined cognitive map by which conversations proceed
• collaboratively achieved
• managed on a turn-by-turn basis
• one-at-a-time talk
• highly coordinated

With respect to managing turns at talk, three of the above are of particular importance. First, there is the general likelihood that interlocutors talk one at a time. Clearly, there will be instances when this is not so, however. During such instances, the overlapping talk is noticeable as such and the interlocutors typically attempt to rectify the situation by reverting to only one speaker. The justification for this reversion is the assumption that interlocutors generally cannot process information from more than one source at a time and that much overlapping talk is potentially unhearable. Second, we have noted that when one speaker stops talking another takes over with little overlap and an extremely short pause between turns (typically of just a few microseconds). Third, the size of conversational turns, their order of occurrence, their relative distribution amongst participants and what is actually said are not predetermined.

Local management of turn taking

Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974), (1978) proposed a mechanism which accounts for the collaborative achievement of conversation with respect to the three characteristics highlighted above. It is said to function on a turn-by-turn basis.

Turn-Constructional Unit (TCU)

In this so-called local management system, turns at talk are made up of turn-constructional units (TCUs). These are generally syntactic units like noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, and so on, and they are identified by prosodic features such as pitch, tempo and variations in loudness. Initially a speaker is assigned just one turn-constructional unit, although its length is largely under the speaker’s own control. The end of a turn-constructional unit is a possible point for interlocutors to change over, i.e. the current speaker becomes the current listener and the current listener becomes the current speaker. This is known as a transition relevance place [TRP].

Transition Relevance Place (TRP)

An example should help us better understand the concept of a transition relevance place and its relationship to turn-constructional units. Consider the following extract from a conversation between two people, Anne and Ben.

1 Anne:  so would you like to learn to be

2        able to write letters to him?

3 Ben:   I would

4 Anne:  right (…) well you’ve learnt such

5        a lot of words reading

6        them that all we have to practice

7        now is putting them together into

8        a letter isn’t it?

9 Ben:   yeah

The first thing to notice is that the length of the utterances varies considerably, from the single word acknowledgement yeah in line 9 to the complex tag question  right (…) well you’ve learnt such a lot of words reading them that all we have to practice now is putting them together into a letter isn’t it? in lines 4-8.  Let us analyze the conversation line by line. In lines 1-2, Anne is the first to speak with an utterance made up of just one turn-constructional unit. This is in the form of a question so would you like to learn to be able to write letters to him? The end of this turn-constructional unit is a transition relevance place, where the roles of speaker and listener can swap over. In fact the roles do reverse and Anne ceases to be the current speaker, as Ben takes over as the current speaker in line 3. Anne is now, therefore, the current listener, as Ben takes a turn at talk with the turn-constructional unit I would. Again, the end of this unit is a transition relevance place and the next turn at talk transfers back to Anne. This time, Anne’s utterance is made up of two turn-constructional units (lines 4-8). The first turn-constructional unit is the single word acknowledgement right. You will notice that this is then followed by a pause. This pause marks a possible transition relevance place that signals that the turn at talk could transfer back to Ben at this point. However, Ben does not take up a turn at talk at this juncture and so Anne continues with a second turn-constructional unit well you’ve learnt such a lot of words reading them that all we have to practice now is putting them together into a letter isn’t it? Once more, the end of this tag question represents a transition relevance place, i.e. a place where it is relevant that the roles of speaker and listener could reverse. Indeed, the roles are reversed, as Ben takes up a turn at talk in line 9 with the single turn-constructional unit yeah.

All conversations can be progressively analyzed in terms of turn-constructional units and transition relevance places. The above analysis is summarized below, with each turn-constructional unit [TCU] and transition relevance place [TRP] marked.

1 Anne:  [TCU so would you like to learn to be

2        able to write letters to him?] [TRP]

3 Ben:   [TCU I would] [TRP]

4 Anne:  [TCU right] [TRP] [TCU well you’ve learnt such

5        a lot of words reading

6        them that all we have to practice

7        now is putting them together into

8        a letter isn’t it?] [TRP]

9 Ben:   [TCU yeah]

To summarize, we have seen how initially a speaker is assigned just one turn-constructional unit and that its length is largely under the speaker’s own control. We have also seen how the end of a turn-constructional unit is a possible point for the interlocutors to change over, i.e. the current speaker could stop speaking and the current listener could begin to talk and, thereby, become the next speaker. Finally, participants can change over at these so-called transition relevance places but do not necessarily do so, nor do they have to do so. Next, we look a little more closely at what determines if a transition will occur by considering some rules of turn allocation.

References

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language , 50 (4), 696-735.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. New York: Academic Press.

NEXT>> Turn Allocation: Rule 1