CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningLinguistics and Language Analysis

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Precision Timing in Novice-to-Novice L2 Conversations

Open access
Carroll, Donald·2000·Issues in Applied Linguistics
DOI 10.5070/l4111005025
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

That next speakers in talk-in-interaction are capable of precisely timing their entry into the conversational flow is now taken as a given in conversation analytic research. However, the classic studies establishing this fact were based on the analysis of talk between proficient language users, that is, individuals traditionally referred to as "native" speakers. The question then arises as to whether novice-level second language (L2) speakers are similarly capable of precision timing. This paper examines instances of "no-gap" speaker transition, so-called "normal overlap" at transition relevant places, and cases of "turn recycles" in non-pedagogic, casual talk between novice-level Japanese speakers of English (NNS-NNS talk). The primary finding is that novice L2 users can and regularly do start "on time." The paper also explores the possibility that certain inter-turn gaps in the novice L2 data studied here are interactionally occasioned by disfluencies or insufficiencies in prior speaker's turn.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5070/l4111005025

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Auer, P. (Ed.). (1998). Code-switching in conversation: Language, interaction and identity. London: Routledge.
  3. Coulmas, F. (Ed.). (1981). A festschrift for the native speaker. The Hague: Mouton.
  4. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selling, M. (Eds.). (1996). Prosody in conversation. Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 102-128). Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press..
  6. Davies, A. ( 1 99 1 ). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  7. Davies, A. (1994). Native speaker. In R. E. Asher & J. M. Y. Simpson (Eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 5, pp. 2719-2725). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
  8. Firth, A. (1995). Multiple mode, single activity: 'Telenegotiating" as a social accomplish- ment. In P. ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 151-172).
  9. Washington, D.C.: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
  10. Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal. 81, 285-3(X3.
  11. Ford, C. (in press). At the intersection of turn and sequence: Negation and what comes next. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  12. Ford, C, & Thompson, S. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intona- tional, and pragmatics resources for the management of turns. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 134-184). Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M., & Jasperson, R. (1996). Resources and repair: A cross-linguistic study of syntax and repair. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar {^^p. 185-237). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. French, P., & Local, J. (1983). Turn-competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 17-38.
  15. Euro, H. (1998). Turn-taking in Japanese conversation: Grammar, intonation, and pragmatics. In N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki, & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/ Korean Linguistics, (Vol. 7, pp. 41-57). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  16. Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97-121). New York: Irvington.
  17. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
  18. Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (1989). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  19. Hayashi, M. (1994). A comparative study of self-repair in English and Japanese conversa- tion. In N. Akatsuka (Ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics, (Vol 4, pp. 77-93). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  20. Hayashi, M. & Mori, J. (1998). Co-construction in Japanese revisited: We do finish each others sentences. In N. Akatsuka, H. Hoji, S. Iwasaki, & S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese/ Korean Linguistics, (Vol. 7, pp. 77-93). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
  21. Heritage, J. M. (1984a). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. Heritage, J. M. (1984b). Garftnkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  23. Hopper, R. (1992). Telephone conversation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
  24. Houtkoop, H., & Mazeland, H. (1985). Turns and discourse units in everyday conversa- tion. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 595-619.
  25. Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  26. Jefferson, G. (1987). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a standard maximum silence of approximately one second in conversation. In D. Roger & P. Bull (Eds.), Conversation: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166-196). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  27. Jefferson, G. (1990). List construction as a task and interactional resource. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interactional competence (pp. 63-92). Washington, D.C.: University Press of America.
  28. Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Notes on laughter in the pursuit of intimacy. In G. Button, J. R. E. Lee, (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 1 52- 205). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters:
  29. Koshik, I. (1999). Practices of pedagogy in ESL writing conferences: A conversation analytic study of turns and sequences that assist student revision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
  30. Kurhila, S. (in press). Correction in talk between native and non-native speakers. Journal of Pragmatics.
  31. Lemer, G. (1996). On the "semi -permeable" character of grammatical units in conversa- tion: Conditional entry into the turn space of another speaker. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 238-276). Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  33. Local, J. (1986). Patterns and problems in a study of Tyneside intonation. In C. Johns- Lewis (Ed.), Intonation and discourse (pp. 181-198). London: Croom Helm Local, J., & Kelly, J. (1986). Projection and "silences": Notes on phonetic and conversa- tional structure. Human Studies, 9, 1 85-204.
  34. Maynard, S. (1997). Japanese communication: Language and thought in context. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
  35. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  36. Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadel- phia, PA University of Pennsylvania Press.
  37. Philips, S. (1992). The routinization of repair in courtroom discourse. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 311-322). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessment: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Richards, J. (1977). Answers to yes/no questions. ELT Journal. 3L
  40. Richards, J. (1990). Interchange I: Student's Book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  41. Sacks, H. (1987). On the preference for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
  42. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation: Edited by G. Jefferson, introduction by E. Schegloff. Cambridge: MA: Blackwell Publishers.
  43. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of tumtaking in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 7-55). New York: Academic Press.
  44. Schegloff, E. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: Formulating place. In D. Sudnow (Ed.). Studies in social interaction (pp. 75-1 19). New York: Free Press.
  45. Schegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of "uh huh" and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics (pp. 71-93). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  46. Schegloff, E. (1987). Recycled turn beginnings: A precise repair mechanism in conversation's turn-taking organization. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 70-85). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters
  47. Schegloff, E. (1992). On talk and its institutional occasions. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work (pp. 101-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Schegloff, E. (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In E. Ochs, E. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 52-133). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. Schlegel. J. (1998). Finding words, finding meanings: Collaborative learning and distributed cognition. In S. Hoyle & C. Temple Adger (Eds.) Kids talk: Strategic language use in later childhood (pp. 187-204). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  50. Scollon, R. (1985). The machine stops: Silence in the metaphor of malfunction. In D. Tannen & M. Saville-Troike (Eds.), Georgetown University roundtable on languages and linguistics 1981 (pp. 21-31).
  51. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
  52. Searie. J. (1991). Conversation. In John Searie et al. (On) Searle on Conversation (pp. 7- 29). Amsterdam: Benjimins.
  53. Carroll Seedhouse, P. (1996). Learning talk: A study of the interactional organization of the L2 classroom from the conversation analysis institutional discourse perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Educational Studies, University of York.
  54. Tanaka, H. (in press). The particle Ne as a turn-management device in Japanese conversa- tion. Journal of Pragmatics.
  55. Vance, T. (1987). An introduction to Japanese phonology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  56. Wagner, J. (Ed.), (1996). Conversation analysis of foreign language data. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 26, (2) 145-259.
  57. Wells, B., & Peppe, S. (1996). Ending up in Ulster: Prosody and turn-taking in English dialects. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & M. Selting (Eds.), Prosody in Conversation (pp. 101- 130). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Wolfson, N. (1989). The social dynamics of native and nonnative variation in complimenting behavior. In M. R. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamics interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 219-236). New York, NY: Plenum.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 56

Metadata

Authors
Carroll, D.
Affiliations
Shikoku Gakuin University (JP)
Corresponding author
Carroll, Donald
Venue
Issues in Applied Linguistics
Publisher
California Digital Library (CDL)
Published
2000-06-30
Volume
11
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1050-4273 (ISSN-L)
  • 2379-4542
DOI
10.5070/l4111005025
OpenAlex
W2145387296
Cited by
56
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Issues in Applied Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
Keywords
precision timing, turn-taking, disfluency, Japanese speakers of English, everyday conversation

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