A note on conversational interruptions
In their seminal article, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) examine procedures for turn-taking in conversation. Sometimes, they note, a s peaker will select who has the next turn, but more frequently a "self-select" system operates, whereby the participants in a conversation themselves...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
1984-01-01
|
| Series: | Ilha do Desterro |
| Online Access: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/desterro/article/view/10878 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | In their seminal article, Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) examine procedures for turn-taking in conversation. Sometimes, they note, a s peaker will select who has the next turn, but more frequently a "self-select" system operates, whereby the participants in a conversation themselves determine when they wish to speak.
But how, ask Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson, do the interlocutors secure a turn in the ongoing flow of another speaker's utterance? To answer this question the authors introduce the notion of "transition relevance place", that is, a point in the turn-holder's utterance where another speaker is
most likely to take up a turn. Clearly the most obvious transition relevance place occurs at the end of an utterance sentence, where a pause may be made. However, clause or thersyntactic boundaries also offer opportunities for other speakers to interrupt. As Sacks et al point out, if conversational participants do not take up a turn at a transition relevance place the turn holder will normally continue. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0101-4846 2175-8026 |