Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T15:49:15.166Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A preference for progressivity in interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2006

TANYA STIVERS  and
JEFFREY D. ROBINSON
TANYA STIVERS
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, PB 310, NL-6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands, Tanya.Stivers@mpi.nl
JEFFREY D. ROBINSON
Affiliation:
Department of Communication, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, jrob@scils.rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article investigates two types of preference organization in interaction: in response to a question that selects a next speaker in multi-party interaction, the preference for answers over non-answer responses as a category of a response; and the preference for selected next speakers to respond. It is asserted that the turn allocation rule specified by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974) which states that a response is relevant by the selected next speaker at the transition relevance place is affected by these two preferences once beyond a normal transition space. It is argued that a “second-order” organization is present such that interactants prioritize a preference for answers over a preference for a response by the selected next speaker. This analysis reveals an observable preference for progressivity in interaction.Thank you to Nick Enfield, Steve Levinson and Manny Schegloff for useful discussions about the phenomena discussed in this article, and to John Heritage for his careful reading and comments on earlier drafts. Portions of this article were presented at the 2002 Western States Communication Association convention, Long Beach, California, and at the Workshop on Feedback in Interaction at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, in February 2004.

Keywords

interactionconversation analysispreferencesequence organization
Type
Research Article
Information
Language in Society , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 367 - 392
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Atkinson, J. Maxwell, & Heritage, John (1984) (eds.). Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beach, Wayne A., & Metzger, Terri R. (1997). Claiming insufficient knowledge. Human Communication Research 23:562–88.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, Steven (1993). Booing: The anatomy of a disaffiliative response. American Sociological Review 58:110–30.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven (2002). Sequence and solidarity. In E. J. Lawler & S. R. Thye (eds.), Advances in group processes: Group cohesion, trust and solidarity, 229–53. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Golato, Andrea (2002). German compliment responses. Journal of Pragmatics 34:547–71.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, & Goodwin, Charles (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62:51–75.Google Scholar
Heritage, John (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
Heritage, John (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In C. Antaki (ed.), Understanding everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, 127–44. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lerner, Gene (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32:177–201.Google Scholar
Lerner, Gene (2002). Practice does not make perfect: Intervening actions in the selection of next speaker. Paper presented at the UCLA Conference on Language, Interaction, and Culture, Los Angeles, California.
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ochs, Elinor, & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1984). Language acquisition and socialization: Three developmental stories and their implications. In R. Shweder & R. LeVine (eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self and emotion, 276–320. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pomerantz, Anita (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 79–112. New York: Academic Press.
Pomerantz, Anita (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson &Heritage (eds.), 57–101.
Pomerantz, Anita (1984b). Pursuing a response. In Atkinson &Heritage (eds.), 152–64.
Raymond, Geoffrey (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68:939–67.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1967). Next-speaker selection techniques; Paired utterances. Paper presented at the Lectures on Conversation, Oxford, UK.
Sacks, Harvey (1973a). Lectures at the Summer Institute of Linguistics, Ann Arbor.
Sacks, Harvey (1973b). The preference for agreement in natural conversation.
Sacks, Harvey (1987a). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organisation, 54–69. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, Harvey (1987b). ‘You want to find out if anybody really does care’. In Button &Lee (eds.), Talk and social organisation, 219–25.
Sacks, Harvey, & Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons and their interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, 15–21. New York: Irvington.
Sacks, Harvey; Schegloff, Emanuel A.; & Jefferson, Gail (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50:696–735.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 75–119. New York: Free Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1979). The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax, 261–88. New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (in press). A primer for conversation analysis: Sequence organization. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel A.; Jefferson, Gail; & Sacks, Harvey (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53:361–82.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., & Sacks, Harvey (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica 8:289–327.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya (2001). Negotiating who presents the problem: Next speaker selection in pediatric encounters. Journal of Communication 51(2):1–31.Google Scholar