CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 557Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesPhonetics and Phonology ResearchSpeech and dialogue systems

Projecting the End of a Speaker's Turn: A Cognitive Cornerstone of Conversation

Open access
de Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, Holger, Enfield, N. J.·2006·Language
DOI 10.1353/lan.2006.0130
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

A key mechanism in the organization of turns at talk in conversation is the ability to anticipate or PROJECT the moment of completion of a current speaker's turn. Some authors suggest that this is achieved via lexicosyntactic cues, while others argue that projection is based on intonational contours. We tested these hypotheses in an on-line experiment, manipulating the presence of symbolic (lexicosyntactic) content and intonational contour of utterances recorded in natural conversations. When hearing the original recordings, subjects can anticipate turn endings with the same degree of accuracy attested in real conversation. With intonational contour entirely removed (leaving intact words and syntax, with a completely flat pitch), there is no change in subjects' accuracy of end-of-turn projection. But in the opposite case (with original intonational contour intact, but with no recognizable words), subjects' performance deteriorates significantly. These results establish that the symbolic (i.e. lexicosyntactic) content of an utterance is necessary (and possibly sufficient) for projecting the moment of its completion, and thus for regulating conversational turn-taking. By contrast, and perhaps surprisingly, intonational contour is neither necessary nor sufficient for end-of-turn projection.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/lan.2006.0130

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Laboratory studies where participants pressed a button as soon as they thought a turn had ended have shown that listeners are sensitive to such cues and can use them to anticipate ends of turns, rather than respond to them.

    “Laboratory studies where participants were asked to press a button as soon as they thought a turn had ended have shown that listeners are sensitive to such cues and can use them to anticipate ends of turns, rather than respond to them”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as de Ruiter, Mitterer, & Enfield, 2006

  • Listeners predict ends of turns and launch prepared responses in anticipation rather than in response to them.

    “The second claim is that listeners predict ends of turns and launch prepared responses in anticipation rather than in response to them.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as de Ruiter, Mitterer, & Enfield, 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J.
Affiliations
Max Planck Society (DE)
ORCID
Enfield, N. J.
Venue
Language
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2006-09
Volume
82
Issue
3
Pages
515-535
ISSN
  • 0097-8507 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-0665
DOI
10.1353/lan.2006.0130
OpenAlex
W2129090275
Cited by
557
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 98 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 19
FWCI
56.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 7111 d)
Locations
  • Language (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
  • OAR@UM (University of Malta) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Publikationen an der Universität Bielefeld (Universität Bielefeld) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Commission
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
turn-taking, conversational organization, intonational contours, utterance completion, speech perception, conversational repair, prosody

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