The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns
Abstract
Introduction The research reported in this chapter is intended as a contribution to an understanding of the basic linguistic units used by speakers in spontaneous communication. Our interest is in the linguistic factors associated with the split-second timing of next turn onset that has been documented in conversation analytic literature (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, 1974; Jefferson, 1973; Wilson and Zimmerman, 1986). In the past two decades, conversation analysts have uncovered patterns and principles of interaction, particularly in the areas of turn-taking and the sequential organization of talk. The picture of spontaneous interaction that emerges very clearly from this research depicts a complex and intricately monitored human practice that is maximally sensitive to moment-by-moment input by all parties to a conversation, and is, therefore, characterized by an organization that is locally managed. Turns at talk vary widely in length, and their length is not unilaterally controlled. The extension of a turn at talk has everything to do with the manner in which that turn is being responded to by the other participant(s) in the conversation (e.g., Atkinson and Heritage, 1984; Davidson, 1984; C. Goodwin, 1979, 1981, 1986a, 1986b, 1987; M. Goodwin, 1980; Goodwin and Goodwin, 1986, 1987, forthcoming; Heritage, 1984, 1989; Jefferson, 1973, 1987, 1989; Lerner, 1987, 1989, 1991, in progress; Sacks, et al. 1974; Schegloff, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992; Schegloff and Sacks, 1973; Wilson and Zimmerman, 1986; and Wilson et al. 1984). To understand the syntax and rhetoric of conversational language use, linguists need to take very seriously the situated practices of conversationalists as revealed in the careful work of conversation analysts.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Language typology and syntactic description
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M., & Liljegren, H. (2013) · Linguistic Typology · doi:10.1515/lity-2013-0004 · Cited by 1,244
Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking
Clark, H. (2002) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00017-3 · Cited by 1,235
Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation
SCHEGLOFF, E. A. (2000) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404500001019 · Cited by 1,163
Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry
Heritage, J. (1998) · Language in Society · doi:10.1017/s0047404500019990 · Cited by 689
Projecting the End of a Speaker's Turn: A Cognitive Cornerstone of Conversation
de Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006) · Language · doi:10.1353/lan.2006.0130 · Cited by 557
Metadata
- Authors
- Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A.
- Venue
- Interaction and Grammar
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 1996-12-12
- Pages
- 134-184
- OpenAlex
- W2237495196
- Cited by
- 979
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 70.34
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9780511620874.003
- The paper
- Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. Interaction and Grammar. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511620874.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.