Implementing delayed actions

Bolden, Galina B.

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511635670.012

Cited by 28 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 251 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the majority of OIRs occur directly after the turn at talk containing the trouble source, a minority of cases occur after this next-turn position Bolden, 2009;Benjamin, 2012). A distinction between these two positions is crucial for the present investigation because only OIRs in next position to the turn-constructional unit (TCU; ) that contains the trouble-source result in a transition that consist of a gap or overlap, without intervening talk.…”

Section: Oirs In and After Next Positionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction

Holler

Kendrick

Casillas

et al. 2016

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The core use of language is in face-to-face conversation. This is characterized by rapid turn-taking. This turn-taking poses a number central puzzles for the psychology of language. Consider, for example, that in large corpora the gap between turns is on the order of 100 to 300 ms, but the latencies involved in language production require minimally between 600ms (for a single word) or 1500 ms (for as simple sentence). This implies that participants in conversation are predicting the ends of the incoming turn and preparing in advance. But how is this done? What aspects of this prediction are done when? What happens when the prediction is wrong? What stops participants coming in too early? If the system is running on prediction, why is there consistently a mode of 100 to 300 ms in response time? The timing puzzle raises further puzzles: it seems that comprehension must run parallel with the preparation for production, but it has been presumed that there are strict cognitive limitations on more than one central process running at a time. How is this bottleneck overcome? Far from being 'easy' as some psychologists have suggested, conversation may be one of the most demanding cognitive tasks in our everyday lives. Further questions naturally arise: how do children learn to master this demanding task, and what is the developmental trajectory in this domain? Research shows that aspects of turn-taking such as its timing are remarkably stable across languages and cultures, but the word order of languages varies enormously. How then does prediction of the incoming turn work when the verb (often the informational nugget in a clause) is at the end? Conversely, how can production work fast enough in languages that have the verb at the beginning, thereby requiring early planning of the whole clause? What happens when one changes modality, as in sign languages -- with the loss of channel constraints is turn-taking much freer? And what about face-to-face communication amongst hearing individuals -- do gestures, gaze, and other body behaviors facilitate turn-taking? One can also ask the phylogenetic question: how did such a system evolve? There seem to be parallels (analogies) in duetting bird species, and in a variety of monkey species, but there is little evidence of anything like this among the great apes. All this constitutes a neglected set of problems at the heart of the psychology of language and of the language sciences. This research topic welcomes contributions from right across the board, for example from psycholinguists, developmental psychologists, students of dialogue and conversation analysis, linguists interested in the use of language, phoneticians, corpus analysts and comparative ethologists or psychologists. We welcome contributions of all sorts, for example original research papers, opinion pieces, and reviews of work in subfields that may not be fully understood in other subfields

show abstract

Section: Oirs In and After Next Positionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction

Holler

Kendrick

Casillas

et al. 2016

Frontiers Research Topics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some pre-prior sequence In the following extracts, participants use materials not from the prelapse sequence but from before the prelapse sequence. Participants have numerous devices for continuing with sidetracked, diverted, or otherwise incomplete courses of action (e.g., Bolden, 2009;Mazeland & Huiskes, 2001). The following examples show that lapses are a place to use such devices.…”

Section: Extract 4 (Rce02_15)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Speakers in a lapse may thus treat prior courses of action as incomplete, which reflexively warrants their continuation. Lapses may also provide for the resumption of deferred courses of action (see Bolden, 2009). In Extract 6, two friends (Will and Jamie) convened on campus to review a speech that Will wrote for class.…”

Section: Extract 5 (Rce25_27)mentioning

confidence: 99%

How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation

Hoey

2018

Research on Language and Social Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do conversational participants continue with turn-by-turn talk after a momentary lapse? If all participants forgo the option to speak at possible sequence completion, an extended silence may emerge that can indicate a lack of anything to talk about next. For the interaction to proceed recognizably as a conversation, the postlapse turn needs to implicate more talk. Using conversation analysis, I examine three practical alternatives regarding sequentially implicative postlapse turns: Participants may move to end the interaction, continue with some prior matter, or start something new. Participants are shown using resources grounded in the interaction's overall structural organization, the materials from the interaction-so-far, the mentionables they bring to interaction, and the situated environment itself. Comparing these alternatives, there's suggestive quantitative evidence for a preference for continuation. The analysis of lapse resolution shows lapses as places for the management of multiple possible courses of action. Data are in U.S. and UK English. Much of social life occurs in situations where conversation is the central activity (Schegloff, 2006). For these situations, participants arrange themselves for sustained mutual involvement (Goffman, 1963; Kendon, 1990) and exchange speaking turns one after another with minimal gap and overlap (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Any observer of such a scene could identify it as "a conversation." It's somewhat of an idealization, however, to picture these situations as uniformly consisting of continuous turn-by-turn talk. Certain contingencies might result in periods of extended silence. The conversation might be paused for participants to attend to another matter, it might get interrupted by an unexpected event, or-as I address in this article-it might lapse into silence for lack of a next speaker. The problem I am concerned with is how participants in ordinary conversations continue with talk-in-interaction after it lapses. Lapses are periods of nontalk that develop when all interactants forgo the opportunity to self-select in a place where speaking was possible (Sacks et al., 1974). Some activities provide for lapses. For example, lapses that emerge during group coursework (Szymanski, 1999) or when watching television (Ergül, 2016) are accountable by reference to those activities. These situations have been characterized as "ongoing states of incipient talk" (Schegloff, 2007;

show abstract

“…Parentheticals are said to organise information in turns and shape the participation framework (Duvallon & Routarinne 2005;Bolden 2009), which reflects the way the speakers and hearers can relate to one another as well as their orientation towards utterances. They are subsidiary activities referred to as skip-connecting, i.e.…”

Section: Parentheticals and Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

Multimodal Analysis of Parentheticals in Conversational Speech

Lelandais

Ferré

2014

Multimodal Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International audienceBased on a video recording of conversational British English, this paper aims at describing the relation between verbal and non-verbal signals in the production process of parentheticals within the framework of Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Parentheticals are described in linguistics as side sequences interrupting linear development. Although their syntactic, prosodic and discursive characteristics have been deeply analysed, few studies have focused on the articulation of the different communicative modes in their production process. Beyond showing that gesture brings complementary information in regard to prosody, contributing to a composite collateral message, the results allow better delineation and understanding of skip-connecting phenomena as constructing coherence. Changes in the modal configuration throughout the parenthetical sequence suggest modes are dynamic and flexible resources for indexing parentheticals and their particular framing function

show abstract

Implementing delayed actions

Cited by 28 publications

References 251 publications

Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction

Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction

How Speakers Continue with Talk After a Lapse in Conversation

Multimodal Analysis of Parentheticals in Conversational Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About