Anticipation in turn-taking: mechanisms and information sources
Open accessAbstract
During conversations participants alternate smoothly between speaker and hearer roles with only brief pauses and overlaps. There are two competing types of accounts about how conversationalists accomplish this: (a) the signaling approach and (b) the anticipatory ('projection') approach. We wanted to investigate, first, the relative merits of these two accounts, and second, the relative contribution of semantic and syntactic information to the timing of next turn initiation. We performed three button-press experiments using turn fragments taken from natural conversations to address the following questions: (a) Is turn-taking predominantly based on anticipation or on reaction, and (b) what is the relative contribution of semantic and syntactic information to accurate turn-taking. In our first experiment we gradually manipulated the information available for anticipation of the turn end (providing information about the turn end in advance to completely removing linguistic information). The results of our first experiment show that the distribution of the participants' estimation of turn-endings for natural turns is very similar to the distribution for pure anticipation. We conclude that listeners are indeed able to anticipate a turn-end and that this strategy is predominantly used in turn-taking. In Experiment 2 we collected purely reacted responses. We used the distributions from Experiments 1 and 2 together to estimate a new dependent variable called Reaction Anticipation Proportion. We used this variable in our third experiment where we manipulated the presence vs. absence of semantic and syntactic information by low-pass filtering open-class and closed class words in the turn. The results suggest that for turn-end anticipation, both semantic and syntactic information are needed, but that the semantic information is a more important anticipation cue than syntactic information.
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
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.
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?
Other laboratory studies have demonstrated that listeners can use semantic information and the discourse context to predict ends of turns.
“Other laboratory studies have demonstrated that listeners can use semantic information and the discourse context to predict ends of turns”
From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Riest, Jorschick, & de Ruiter, 2015
Experiment 3 reports that semantic information helps listeners anticipate turn endings. The General Discussion says the experiments used isolated turns, so they could not assess the effect of discourse context; whether it improves anticipation was left for future research. The claim that laboratory studies demonstrated both cues is therefore supported only for semantic information. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 145
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- Brown C. M. Hagoort P. Ter Keurs M. (1999). Electrophysiological signatures of visual lexical processing: open-and closed-class words. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 11 261– 281 10.1162/089892999563382 10402255 · DOI
- Casillas M. Frank M. C. (2013). “The development of predictive processes in children’s discourse understanding,“ in Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, eds Knauff M. Pauen M. Sebanz N. Wachsmuth I.(Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society), 299– 304.
- Caspers J. (2003). Local speech melody as a limiting factor in the turn-taking system in Dutch. J. Phon. 31 251– 276 10.1016/S0095-4470(03)00007-X · DOI
- Chiarello C. Nuding S. (1987). Visual field effects for processing content and function words. Neuropsychologia 25 539– 548 10.1016/0028-3932(87)90078-9 3683811 · DOI
- De Ruiter J.-P. Mitterer H. Enfield N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s Turn: a cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language (Baltim.) 82 515– 535 10.1353/lan.2006.0130 · DOI · Paper page
- Duncan S. J. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 23 283– 292 10.1037/h0033031 · DOI
- Duncan S. J. (1973). Toward a grammar for dyadic conversation. Semiotica 9 29– 46 10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.29 · DOI
- Duncan S. J. Niederehe G. (1974). On signalling that it’s your turn to speak. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 10 234– 247 10.1016/0022-1031(74)90070-5 · DOI
- Ford C. E. Thompson S. A. (1996). “Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns,” in Interaction and Grammar, eds Ochs E. Schegloff E. A. Thompson S. A., (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press), 134– 184.
- Gravano A. Hirschberg J. (2011). Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue. Comput. Speech Lang. 25 601– 634 10.1016/j.csl.2010.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Grosjean F. Hirt C. (1996). Using prosody to predict the end of sentences in English and French: normal and brain-damaged subjects. Lang. Cogn. Process. 11 107– 134 10.1080/016909696387231 · DOI
- Heldner M. Edlund J. (2010). Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. J. Phon. 38 555– 568 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002 · DOI · Paper page
- Indefrey P. Levelt W. J. M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 92 101– 44 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001 15037128 · DOI · Paper page
- Jakubowicz C. Goldblum M. C. (1995). Processing of number and gender inflections by French-speaking aphasics. Brain Lang. 51 242– 68 10.1006/brln.1995.1060 8564471 · DOI
- Jeffreys H. (1961). Theory of probability. 3rd Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
- Jescheniak J. D. Schriefers H. Hantsch A. (2003). Utterance format effects phonological priming in the picture-word task: implications for models of phonological encoding in speech production. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 29 441– 454 10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.441 12760627 · DOI
- Kass R. E. Raftery A. E. (1995). Bayes Factors. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90 773– 795 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 · DOI · Paper page
- Kedar Y. Casasola M. Lust B. (2006). Getting there faster: 18- and 24-month-old infants’ use of function words to determine reference. Child Dev. 77 325– 38 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00873.x 16611175 · DOI
- Keitel A. Prinz W. Friederici A. D. von Hofsten C. Daum M. M. (2013). Perception of conversations: the importance of semantics and intonation in children’s development. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 116 264– 277 10.1016/j.jecp.2013.06.005 23876388 · DOI
- Kendrick K. H. Torreira F. (2014). The timing and construction of preference: a quantitative study. Discourse Process. 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997 · DOI
- Levinson S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Marslen-Wilson W. D. (1987). Functional parallelism in spoken word-recognition. Cognition 25 71– 102 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90005-9 3581730 · DOI
- Marslen-Wilson W. D. Welsh A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical access during word recognition in continuous speech. Cogn. Psychol. 10 29– 63 10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-X · DOI
- McClelland J. L. Elman J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cogn. Psychol. 18 1– 86 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90015-0 3753912 · DOI
- Morey R. D. Rouder J. N. (2011). Bayes factor approaches for testing interval null hypotheses. Psychol. Methods 16 406– 419 10.1037/a0024377 21787084 · DOI
- O’Connell D. C. Kowal S. Kaltenbacher E. (1990). Turn-taking: a critical analysis of the research tradition. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 19 345– 373 10.1007/BF01068884 · DOI
- Power R. J. D. Dal Martello M. F. (1986). Some criticisms of Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson on turn taking. Semiotica 58 29– 40 10.1515/semi.1986.58.1-2.29 · DOI
- Rouder J. N. Morey R. D. Speckman P. L. Province J. M. (2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. J. Math. Psychol. 56 356– 374 10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001 · DOI · Paper page
- Rouder J. N. Speckman P. L. Sun D. Morey R. D. Iverson G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 16 225– 237 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225 19293088 · DOI · Paper page
- Schegloff E. A. (1982). “Discourse as an interactional achievment: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences,” in Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics: Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. Tannen D. (Washington: Georgetown University Press), 71– 93.
- Schnur T. T. Costa A. Caramazza A. (2006). Planning at the phonological level during sentence production. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 35 189– 213 10.1007/s10936-005-9011-6 16502144 · DOI
- Segalowitz S. J. Lane K. C. (2000). Lexical access of function versus content words. Brain Lang. 75 376– 389 10.1006/brln.2000.2361 11112292 · DOI
- Shannon C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27 379– 423 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · DOI · Paper page
- Stivers T. Enfield N. J. Brown P. Englert C. Hayashi M. Heinemann T. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 10587– 10592 10.1073/pnas.0903616106 19553212 PMC2705608 · DOI · Paper page
- Taylor W. (1953). “ Cloze procedure”: a new tool for measuring readability. Journal. Q. 30 415– 433.
- Wetzels R. Matzke D. Lee M. D. Rouder J. N. Iverson G. J. Wagenmakers E.-J. (2011). Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: an empirical comparison using 855 t tests. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6 291– 298 10.1177/1745691611406923 26168519 · DOI · Paper page
- Yngve V. H. (1970). “On getting a word in edgewise,” in Proceedings of the Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago 6 567– 578.
- Authors
- Riest, C., Jorschick, A. B., & de Ruiter, J. P.
- Affiliations
- Bielefeld University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Riest, Carina
- ORCID
- Jorschick, Annett B.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2015-02-02
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 89-89
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4313610
- OpenAlex
- W2004022807
- Cited by
- 145
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 42.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Project B5, SFB 673)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Keywords
- turn-taking, anticipation, reaction time, projection method, semantic information, syntactic information, conversation, content words, closed-class words
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