Cover not available

Article published In: Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 1:2 (2021) ► pp.154–182

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF

Gaze selects the next speaker in answers to questions pronominally addressed to more than one co-participant

 | University of Freiburg, Germany
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 22 November 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.21002.aue
Abstract
Like many other languages, but unlike modern (standard) English, German has a distinct second person plural pronoun (ihr, ‘you guys’), contrasting with the second person singular pronoun (du). The second person plural pronoun addresses a turn to more than one, and possibly all co-present participants. This paper investigates turn-taking after such multiply addressed turns, taking as an example information-seeking questions, i.e., a sequential context in which a specific next action is relevant in the adjacent position. It might appear that in such a context, self-selection applies ( (1992). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), (On) Searle on Conversation (pp. 113–128), Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar: 122); more than one co-participant is addressed, but none selected as next speaker. In this paper, I show on the basis of spontaneous interactions recorded with mobile eye-tracking equipment that this is not the case and that TCU-final gaze is employed to select the next speaker. The participant not being gazed at TCU-finally is addressed, but not selected as the answerer in next position and may provide an answer in a sequential position after the first answer. The article demonstrates that gaze is an efficient way to allocate turns in the absence of verbal cues and thus contributes to our understanding of turn-taking from a multimodal perspective.
Article outline
  • 1.Second person pronouns, gaze and next speaker selection
  • 2.Quantitative results
    • 2.1Data
    • 2.2Methods
    • 2.3Results
  • 3.First and second answers after ihr-questions
  • 4.Simultaneous answers to ihr-questions
  • 5.Negotiating speakership in delayed responses
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (48)
References
Auer, P. (2018). Gaze, addressee selection and turn-taking in three-party interaction. In G. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.), Eye-tracking in interaction. Studies on the role of eye gaze in dialogue (pp. 197–231). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2021). Turn-allocation and gaze: A multimodal revision of the ‘current-speaker-selects-next’ rule of the turn-taking system of conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 23(2), 117–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auer, P. & Lindström, J. (to appear). On agency and affiliation in second assessments. German and Swedish opinion verbs in talk-in-interaction. In J. Lindström, R. Lauri, A. Peräkylä & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Intersubjectivity in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Pragmatics & Beyond, N.S.).
Blythe, J., Garnder, R., Mushin, I. & Sterling, L. (2018). Tools of engagement: Selecting a next speaker in Australian aboriginal multiparty conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(2), 145–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brône, G., Oben, B., Jehoul, A., Vranjes, J. & Feyaerts, K. (2017). Eye gaze and viewpoint in multimodal interaction management. Cognitive Linguistics 28(3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2010. Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse & Communication 4(2), 161–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Address terms in the organization of turns at talk: The case of pivotal turn extensions, Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 44, no. 13, 1853–1867. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). A system for transcribing talk-in-interaction: GAT 2 translated and adapted for English. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 121, 1–51 ([URL])
Deppermann, A. & Helmer, H. (2013). Zur Grammatik des Verstehens im Gespräch: Inferenzen anzeigen und Handlungskonsequenzen ziehen mit „also“ und „dann“. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(1), 1–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duncan, S. (1975). Interaction units during speaking turns in dyadic, face-to-face conversations. In A. Kendon, R. M. Harris & M. R. Key (Eds.), Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction (pp. 199–212). The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. & Rehbein, J. (1982). Augenkommunikation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Günthner, S. (2000). Form concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast. Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (pp. 439–468). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Praktiken erhöhter Dialogizität: onymische Anredeformen als Gesten personifizierter Zuwendung. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 44(4), 406–436. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Namentliche Anreden in onkologischen Aufklärungsgesprächen: eine interaktional ausgerichtete Studie zu Formen und Funktionen onymischer Anreden. Online: [URL]. (retrieved May 26, 2020).
Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M. (Eds.) (2014). Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayashi, M., Mori, J. & Tagaki, T. (2002). Contingent achievement of co-tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze and gesture. In C. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 81–122). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Reseach on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, J. & Kendrick, K. (2015). Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(98). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica 261, 22–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lerner, G. H. (1992). Assisted storytelling: Deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology 15(3), 247–271. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Selecting next speaker: The context sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 321, 177–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Link, G. (1991). Plurals. In A. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung (pp. 418–440). Berlin: De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication – origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 20(1), 6–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcription. ([URL])
Raymond, G. T. (2003). Grammar and social organzation: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68(6), 939–976. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (2020). Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(2), 197–222. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze behavior in face-to-face interaction. Unpublished PhD, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70(6), 1075–1095. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1992). To Searle on conversation: A note in return. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), (On) Searle on Conversation (pp. 113–128), Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, M., et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT2). Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 101, 353–401. ([URL]).
Stivers, T. (2021). Is conversation built for two? The partitioning of social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(1), 1–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, T. & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43(1), 3–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2018a). Blickpraktiken von SprecherInnen und AdressatInnen bei der Lokaldeixis. Mobile Eye Tracking-Analysen zur Herstellung von joint attention. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 191, 132–168. ([URL])
(2018b). Mobile dual eyetracking in face-to-face interaction: The case of deixis and joint attention. In G. Brône & B. Oben (Eds.) Eye-Tracking in Interaction. Studies on the Role of Eye Gaze in Dialogue (pp. 80–102). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactive achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology 111(1779). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. & Dao, A. N. (2019). Joint attention in passing: What dual mobile eye tracking reveals about gaze in coordinating embodied activities at a market. In Elisabeth Reber & Cornelia Gerhardt (Eds.), Embodied Activities in Face-to-Face and Mediated Settings (pp. 177–216). London etc.: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiitinen, S. & Ruusovuori, J. (2012). Engaging parents through gaze: Speaker selection in three-party interactions in maternity clinics. Patient Education and Counseling 89(1), 38–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Weiß, C. (2018). When gaze-selected next speakers do not take the turn. Journal of Pragmatics 1331, 28–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Blickverhalten des nicht-blickselegierten Sprechers während Korrekturen und Elaborierungen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 201, 1–28. ([URL])
(2020). Blick und Turn-Taking in Face-to-Face-Interaktionen. Multimodale Interaktionsanalysen triadischer Gesprächssituationen mit Hilfe von Eye-Tracking. Göttingen: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. ([URL])
Wittenburg, P., Burgman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A., & Sloetjes, H. (2006). ELAN: A professional framework for multimodality research. Proc. 5th Intern. Conf. Lg. Resources and Evaluation (LREC).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zima, E. (2018). Multimodale Mittel der Rederechtsaushandlung im gemeinsamen Erzählen. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 181, 241–273. ([URL])
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 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. DOI logo
Barthel, Mathias & Christoph Rühlemann
2025. Pupil size indicates planning effort at turn transitions in natural conversation. In Mobile Eye Tracking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 351], ► pp. 188 ff. DOI logo
Krug, Maximilian
2025. Gaze aversion as a marker of disalignment in interactions. In Mobile Eye Tracking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 351], ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Rühlemann, Christoph & Mathias Barthel
2025. Speech planning depends on next-speaker selection: evidence from pupillometry in question–answer sequences in naturalistic triadic conversation. Discourse Processes 62:10 ► pp. 765 ff. DOI logo
Stukenbrock, Anja & Elisabeth Zima
2025. Introduction. In Mobile Eye Tracking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 351], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Zima, Elisabeth, Peter Auer & Christoph Rühlemann
2025. Why research on gaze in social interaction needs mobile eye tracking. In Mobile Eye Tracking [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 351], ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Blythe, Joe, Fakry Hamdani & Scott Barnes
2024. Tactile engagement of prospective next speakers in Indonesian multiparty conversations. Language in Society 53:4 ► pp. 671 ff. DOI logo
Rühlemann, Christoph
2024. Gaze alternation predicts inclusive next-speaker selection: evidence from eyetracking. Frontiers in Communication 9 DOI logo
Rühlemann, Christoph
2025. Do frequency and frequency-related measures signal turn completion? An exploratory corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology 16 DOI logo
Kendrick, Kobin H., Judith Holler & Stephen C. Levinson
2023. Turn-taking in human face-to-face interaction is multimodal: gaze direction and manual gestures aid the coordination of turn transitions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 378:1875 DOI logo
Dahmen, Josua & Joe Blythe
2022. Calibrating recipiency through pronominal reference. Interactional Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 190 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue