ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-088-011 · ATLAS 260

Turn-taking

The orderly transfer of the right to speak between conversation participants.

Part of the subject path Pragmatics and Conversation

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

A · Analytical concept R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Turn-taking examines the local allocation of speaking rights and opportunities to respond. It makes conversation intelligible as coordinated action rather than a sequence of voices or separately recorded tracks.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Turn-taking is the locally coordinated transfer of the floor among participants in conversation. Talk is neither a finished sequence of preassigned contributions nor merely chaotic succession. While a turn is unfolding, others can use syntactic, prosodic, pragmatic, and embodied cues to recognise possible completion points. At such transition-relevance places, a current speaker may select the next, another participant may self-select, or the current speaker may continue. Overlap and silence do not refute the system; their placement and treatment often reveal its normative expectations. These practices are not immutable natural laws and vary across activities, media, and communities. The concept presents conversation as a jointly achieved temporal order in which listening already includes preparation for a possible next action.

Movement of thought

1. One participant initially holds the floor and shapes a turn whose possible completion becomes increasingly projectable as it unfolds. 2. Syntax, prosody, gaze, action type, and context project a place at which transition may become relevant or expected. 3. A next speaker is selected, self-selects, or permits the current speaker to continue, and participants locally coordinate the transfer. 4. A counter-test examines silence, overlap, and repair sequentially and separates organised turn coordination from mere chronological alternation of voices. 5. Conversation continues through the change: each next turn answers the preceding contribution while altering the possibilities available afterward.

Scientific use case

Conversation analysis, pragmatics, and interactional linguistics annotate turns, transition-relevance places, gaps, overlap, and selection procedures. Audio and video data support multimodal and cross-cultural comparison.

Example

After asking, “Which dose do you take in the morning?”, a physician lowers her intonation and looks at the patient; he answers immediately. Grammar, prosody, and gaze converge on transfer.

Counterexample

Two separately recorded monologues may alternate in an edited sequence. Without participants orienting to possible transition points, this is not conversationally organised turn-taking.

Distinction

Distinguish turn-taking from a turn as contribution unit, adjacency pair as relation between action types, interruption as a possible special case, backchannel behaviour, and technically edited alternation. Local interactive coordination is decisive.

Effect on thought and perception

Turn-taking turns multiple voices into a coordinated sequence, distributes attention and opportunities for action, and reveals social rights and expectations in temporal practice.

Resonance

One voice approaches a possible ending and another takes up its open line; between them a brief space emerges in which conversation is carried forward together.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Turn-taking“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-088-011. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-088-011

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-088-011

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

In 1974 Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson describe turn-taking through turn construction and turn allocation. Possible completion points bring ordered alternatives into play: selection of a next speaker, self-selection, or continuation by the current speaker. Their footnotes show that a turn may consist of a word or phrase, while leaving the precise accomplishment of projection open to research. The inspected pages support this model of conversation rather than a universal rule for every institutional setting.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

A possible completion and an actual change of speaker are different events.

References for the historical section

Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.