In:Eye-tracking in Interaction: Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue
Edited by Geert Brône and Bert Oben
[Advances in Interaction Studies 10] 2018
► pp. 197–232
Chapter 9Gaze, addressee selection and turn-taking in three-party interaction
Published online: 13 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.09aue
https://doi.org/10.1075/ais.10.09aue
Abstract
In this paper, I argue that gaze behavior in multiparty interaction is essential for addressee selection and for next-speaker selection by current speaker. The two conversational tasks are related, but – at least in longer turns – not identical and should be distinguished analytically. In multiparty interaction, addressee selection by gaze is a non-trivial issue, as most bodily arrangements make it hard or impossible for the current speaker to look at all (intended) addressees at the same time. As a solution to this problem, current speakers alternatingly look at the co-participants they want to address. For the selection of a next speaker, only the current speaker's gaze during the last phase of the turn is relevant.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Gaze and turn-taking: A short overview
- 3.Speaker gaze in three-party interaction: Addressee selection and next-speaker selection
- 4.Speakers regularly address more than one co-participant simultaneously, although only one of them can be looked at at a time
- 4.1Loosely structured sequential contexts
- 4.2Tightly structured sequential contexts
- 5.The addressee looked at toward the end of a turn constructional unit is given privileged access to the following turn
- 5.1Micro-negotiations of turn-taking by gaze
- 5.2Gaze and the timing of turn-transition
- 6.Why speaker’s gaze is not always strong enough to select the next speaker
- 7.Discussion
- Transcription conventions for gaze (the remainder of the segmental and multimodal transcription follows GAT2, see Selting et al., 2011)
Acknowledgments Notes References
References (24)
Bavelas, J. B., Coates, L. & Johnson, T. (2002). Listener responses as a collaborative process: The role of gaze. Journal of Communication, 52, 566–580.
De Ruiter, J. P. (2007). Some multimodal signals in humans. In I. Van de Sluis, M. Theune, E. Reiter, & E. Krahmer (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Multimodal Output Generation (MOG 2007), 141–148.
Gibson, D. R. (2003). Participation shifts: order and differentiation in group conversation. Social Forces, 81(4), 1335–1381.
Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In: E. Goffman, Forms of Talk (pp.124–159). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York etc.: Academic Press.
Holler, J. & Kendrick, K. (2015). ‘Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6 (98). .
Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch of some aspects of orderly overlap in natural conversation. In: G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp43–59). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kalma, A. (1992). Gazing in triads: a powerful signal in floor apportionment. British Journal of Social Psychology 31(1), 21–39.
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 26, 22–63.
(1973). The role of visible behavior in the organization of social interaction. In: M. Cranach & I. Vine (Eds.), Social Communication and Movement: Studies of Interaction and Expression in Man and Chimpanzee (pp29–74). New York: Academic Press.
Kidwell, M. (1997). Demonstrating recipiency: knowledge displays as a resource for the unaddressed participant. Applied Linguistics 8(2), 85–96.
Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32, 177–201.
(2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis (pp.308–329). Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. In: J. Sidnell (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives (pp.187–249). Cambridge: CUP.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696–735.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language (pp.15–21). New York: Academic Press.
Selting, M. et al. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2. Gesprächsforschung 12, 1–51.
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1), 3–31.
Stivers, T. (2015). Conversation is built for two. Paper presented at 14th IPrA, University of Antwerp, Belgium.
Streeck, J. (2014). Mutual gaze and recognition: Revisiting Kendon’s ‘Gaze direction in two-person interaction’. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From Gesture in Conversation to Gesture as Visible Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon (pp.35.55). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cited by (31)
Cited by 31 other publications
Auer, Peter & Barbara Laner
2025. Laughter and gaze among talkers on a walk. In Mobile Eye Tracking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 351], ► pp. 208 ff.
Krug, Maximilian
2025. Gaze aversion as a marker of disalignment in interactions. In Mobile Eye Tracking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 351], ► pp. 165 ff.
Nishizaka, Aug & Kaoru Hayano
Rasmussen, Gitte & Elisabeth Dalby Kristiansen
2025. The influence of the specificities of gaze behavior on emerging and ensuing interaction. In Mobile Eye Tracking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 351], ► pp. 67 ff.
Sbranna, Simona, Michelina Savino, Florence Baills & Martine Grice
Stukenbrock, Anja & Elisabeth Zima
Ben-Moshe, Yotam M. & Yael Maschler
Blythe, Joe, Fakry Hamdani & Scott Barnes
Kadota, Keisuke, Seima Oyama & Yasuharu Den
Tepencelik, Onur Necip, Wenchuan Wei, Mirabel Luo, Pamela Cosman & Sujit Dey
Wang, Han
Lee, Meng-Chen, Mai Trinh & Zhigang Deng
Nishizaka, Aug
Rühlemann, Christoph & Alexander Ptak
Dahmen, Josua & Joe Blythe
2022. Calibrating recipiency through pronominal reference. Interactional Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 190 ff.
Dell, Nicola, Deborah Estrin, Harald Haraldsson & Wendy Ju
Ferrara, Lindsay
Rühlemann, Christoph
Rühlemann, Christoph
Stommel, Wyke, Ilona Plug, Tim C. olde Hartman, Peter L.B.J. Lucassen, Sandra van Dulmen & Enny Das
Archer, Brent, Jamie H. Azios, Nora Gulick & Jennifer Tetnowski
Auer, Peter
2021. Gaze selects the next speaker in answers to questions pronominally addressed to more than one co-participant. Interactional Linguistics 1:2 ► pp. 154 ff.
Auer, Peter
Brône, Geert
2021. The multimodal negotiation of irony and humor in
interaction. In Figurative Language - Intersubjectivity and Usage [Figurative Thought and Language, 11], ► pp. 109 ff.
Chinn, Deborah & David Rudall
Degutyte, Ziedune & Arlene Astell
Auer, Peter, Angelika Bauer & Ina Hörmeyer
Bateman, Amanda
Dale, Rick, Gregory A. Bryant, Joseph H. Manson & Matthew M. Gervais
Zima, Elisabeth
Vranjes, Jelena, Hanneke Bot, Kurt Feyaerts & Geert Brône
2019. Affiliation in interpreter-mediated therapeutic talk. Interpreting. International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting 21:2 ► pp. 220 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.