Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T17:19:35.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Harvey Sacks,
Emanuel A. Schegloff and
Gail Jefferson
Harvey Sacks
Affiliation:
University of California Irvine
Emanuel A. Schegloff
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Gail Jefferson
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The organization of taking turns to talk is fundamental to conversation, as well as to other speech-exchange systems. A model for the turn-taking organization for conversation is proposed, and is examined for its compatibility with a list of grossly observable facts about conversation. The results of the examination suggest that, at least, a model for turn-taking in conversation will be characterized as locally managed, party-administered, interactionally controlled, and sensitive to recipient design. Several general consequences of the model are explicated, and contrasts are sketched with turn-taking organizations for other speech-exchange systems.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , March 2025, pp. 151 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © 2025 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

[Editorial note: This article was originally published in Language 50(4).696–735, 1974. In celebration of the Centennial of the Linguistic Society of America and of this journal, we are reprinting one or two articles per each decade of Language, selected for their quality and importance to the field. Each article is accompanied by a new piece by colleagues who have expertise and unique insights on the reprinted articles, to offer commentary from both historical and modern perspectives.]

*

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Conference on the Sociology of Language and Theory of Speech Acts, Bielefeld, Germany, April 1973.

References

Albert, E[thel M.] 1964. ‘Rhetoric’, ‘logic’, and ‘poetics’ in Burundi: Culture patterning of speech behavior. In Gumperz & Hymes, 35–54. [DOI: 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00020.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bales, R[obert] F. 1950. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
[Bales, Robert F.] 1970. Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Barker, R[oger] G., and Wright, H[erbert] F.. 1951. One boy's day [: A specimen record of behavior]. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Beardsley, R[ichard] K., Hall, J[ohn] W.; and Ward, R[obert] E.. 1959. Village Japan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beckett, S[amuel]. 1972. The lost ones. New York: Grove Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, J[ames]. 1960. The mathematical study of small groups. Mathematical thinking in the measurement of behavior: Small groups, utility, factor analysis, ed. by Solomon, H[erbert], 7–149. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.Google Scholar
Duncan, S[tarkey] Jr. 1972a. Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23. 283–92. [DOI: 10.1037/h0033031.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Duncan, Starkey Jr.] 1972b. Distribution of auditor back-channel behaviors in dyadic conversation. To appear in Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. [Possibly published as: On the structure of speaker-auditor interaction during speaking turns. Language in Society 3. 161.ndash;80, 1974. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500004322.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Duncan, Starkey Jr.] 1973. Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica 9. 29–46. [DOI: 10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.29.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H[arold]. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
[Garfinkel, Harold], and Sacks, H[arvey]. 1970. On formal structures of practical actions. Theoretical sociology, ed. by McKinney, J[ohn] C. & Tiryakian, E[dward] A., 337–66. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Goffman, E[rving]. 1955. On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry 18. 213–31. [DOI: 10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008.].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[Goffman, Erving]. 1964. The neglected situation. In Gumperz & Hymes, 133–6. [DOI: 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Goffman, Erving]. 1971. Relations in public [: Microstudies of the public order]. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J[o Ann]. ms. A system for the transfer of instructions in natural settings. To appear in Semiotica. [Published, Semiotica 14(3). 269–95, 1975. DOI: 10.1515/semi.1975.14.3.269.].Google Scholar
Gumperz, J[ohn] J., and Hymes, D[ell] (eds.) 1964. The ethnography of communication. American Anthropologist 66:6, part 2 (special publication). Menasha, Wisc. [Online: https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15481433/1964/66/6_PART2.].Google Scholar
Isaacs, S[usan]. 1933. Social development in young children. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Jaffe, J[oseph], and Feldstein, [Stanley]. 1970. Rhythms of dialogue. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G[ail]. 1972. Side sequences. In Sudnow, 294–338.Google Scholar
[Jefferson, Gail]. 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: Overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences. Semiotica 9. 47–96. [DOI: 10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.47.].Google Scholar
[Jefferson, Gail], and Schenkein, J[im]. ms. Some sequential negotiations in conversation: Unexpanded and expanded versions of projected action sequences. To appear in Schenkein et al. [Published in Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, ed. by Schenkein, Jim, 155–72. New York: Academic Press, 1978. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50013-6.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, B[rigitte], and Fuller, N[ancy]. ms. [On] the non-fatal nature of trouble: Sensemaking and trouble-managing in lingua franca talk. To appear in Semiotica. [Published, Semiotica 13(1). 11–32, 1975. DOI: 10.1515/semi.1975.13.1.11.].Google Scholar
Kendon, A[dam]. 1967. Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26.[22–63]. [DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(67)90005-4.].CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matarazzo, J[oseph D.], and Wiens, A[rthur N.]. 1972. The interview: Research on its anatomy and structure. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
Miller, G[eorge A.] 1963. [Speaking in general:] Review of Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, J[oseph H.]. Contemporary Psychology [: A Journal of Reviews] 8. 417–18. [Online: https://resolver.scholarsportal.info/resolve/00107549/v08i0011/417_sig.xml.].Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. C[lyde]. 1956. The Yao village. Manchester: University Press.Google Scholar
Moerman, M[ichael]. 1972. Analysis of Lue conversation: Providing accounts, finding breaches, and taking sides. In Sudnow, 170–228.Google Scholar
[Moerman, Michael], and Sacks, H[arvey]. ms. On understanding in conversation. [Published as: Appendix B: On ‘understanding’ in the analysis of natural conversation. Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis, by Moerman, Michael, 180–86. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988. DOI: 10.9783/9780812200355.180.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H[arvey]. 1972. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In Sudnow, 31–74.Google Scholar
[Sacks, Harvey]. 1974. An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in conversation. To appear in Explorations in the ethnography of speaking, ed. by [Baumann, Richard and Sherzer, Joel]. Cambridge: University Press. [Published in 1974, pp. 337–53. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511611810.022.].Google Scholar
[Sacks, Harvey], and Schegloff, E[manuel A.]. 1974. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. To appear in Ethnomethodology, labelling theory, and deviant behavior, ed. by Avison, N. H. & Wilson, R. J.. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E[manuel A.] 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70. 1075–59. [DOI: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Schegloff, Emanuel A.] 1972. Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In Sudnow, 75–119.Google Scholar
[Schegloff, Emanuel A.] ms. On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Schenkein, et al. [Published in Structures of social action, ed. by Atkinson, J. Maxwell, 28–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511665868.006.].Google Scholar
[Schegloff, Emanuel A.], and Sacks, H[arvey]. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 8. 289–327. [DOI: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkein, J[im], Sack, F.; and Weingarten, E. (eds.) ms. Issues in conversational analysis. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag (to appear). [Does not seem to have been published.].Google Scholar
Stephan, F[rederick] F., and Mishler, E[lliot] G.. 1952. The distribution of participation in small groups: An exponential approximation. American Sociological Review 17. 598–608. [DOI: 10.2307/2088227.].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudnow, D[avid] N. (ed.) 1972. Studies in social interaction. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Yngve, V[ictor]. 1970. On getting a word in edgewise. Papers from the 6th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 567–77.Google Scholar