The Timing and Construction of Preference: A Quantitative Study

Conversation-analytic research has argued that the timing and construction of preferred responding actions (e.g., acceptances) differ from that of dispreferred responding actions (e.g., rejections), potentially enabling early response prediction by recipients. We examined 195 preferred and dispreferred responding actions in telephone corpora and found that the timing of the most frequent cases of each type did not differ systematically. Only for turn transitions of 700 ms or more was the proportion of dispreferred responding actions clearly greater than that of preferreds. In contrast, an analysis of the timing that included turn formats (i.e., those with or without qualification) revealed clearer differences. Small departures from a normal gap duration decrease the likelihood of a preferred action in a preferred turn format (e.g., a simple “yes”). We propose that the timing of a response is best understood as a turn-constructional feature, the first virtual component of a preferred or dispreferred turn format.

[1]  E. Schegloff,et al.  Opening up Closings , 1973 .

[2]  E. Schegloff,et al.  A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 1974 .

[3]  Anita M. Pomerantz Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints , 1978, Asking and Telling in Conversation.

[4]  J. M. Atkinson,et al.  Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings , 1980 .

[5]  Anita M. Pomerantz Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes , 1984 .

[6]  P. Drew Structures of Social Action: Speakers' reportings in invitation sequences , 1985 .

[7]  E. Schegloff Structures of Social Action: On some questions and ambiguities in conversation , 1985 .

[8]  Jack Whalen,et al.  Sociology as a Natural Observational Science@@@Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. , 1987 .

[9]  R. Mackay Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology , 1987 .

[10]  H. Houtkoop Establishing agreement : an analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences , 1987 .

[11]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  On an Actual Virtual Servo-Mechanism for Guessing Bad News: A Single Case Conjecture , 1988 .

[12]  H. Houtkoop-Steenstra Accounting for proposals , 1990 .

[13]  Gene H. Lerner Finding "Face" in the Preference Structures of Talk-in-Interaction , 1996 .

[14]  E. Schegloff Interaction and grammar: Turn organization: one intersection of grammar and interaction , 1996 .

[15]  Cecilia E. Ford,et al.  Interaction and grammar: Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the management of turns , 1996 .

[16]  John H Eritage,et al.  Oh-prefaced responses to inquiry , 1998, Language in Society.

[17]  C. Kitzinger,et al.  Just Say No? The Use of Conversation Analysis in Developing a Feminist Perspective on Sexual Refusal , 1999 .

[18]  木村 和夫 Pragmatics , 1997, Language Teaching.

[19]  E. Schegloff Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation , 2000, Language in Society.

[20]  A. J. Wootton,et al.  Complaint Sequences Within Antagonistic Argument , 2000 .

[21]  S. Clayman Sequence and solidarity , 2002 .

[22]  Geoffrey Raymond Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[23]  W. Levelt,et al.  The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components , 2004, Cognition.

[24]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  The interaction of inter-turn silence with prosodic cues in listener perceptions of "trouble" in conversation , 2006, Speech Commun..

[25]  Traci S. Curl,et al.  Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design , 2006 .

[26]  Jeffrey D. Robinson,et al.  A preference for progressivity in interaction , 2006, Language in Society.

[27]  P. Drew,et al.  Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting , 2008 .

[28]  P. Kay,et al.  Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  Mattias Heldner,et al.  Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations , 2010, J. Phonetics.

[30]  Jeffrey D. Robinson,et al.  Preference organization of sequence-initiating actions: The case of explicit account solicitations , 2010 .

[31]  T. Stivers,et al.  A coding scheme for question-response sequences in conversation , 2010 .

[32]  T. Stivers,et al.  An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation , 2010 .

[33]  Felicia Roberts,et al.  Judgments Concerning the Valence of Inter-Turn Silence Across Speakers of American English, Italian, and Japanese , 2011 .

[34]  S. Speer The Interactional Organization of Self-praise , 2012 .

[35]  Alexa Hepburn,et al.  The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription , 2012 .

[36]  Kaoru Hayano Question design in conversation , 2012 .

[37]  A. Lindström,et al.  Affiliation in Conversation , 2012 .

[38]  Seunghee Lee,et al.  Response Design in Conversation , 2012 .

[39]  Alexander L. Francis,et al.  Identifying a temporal threshold of tolerance for silent gaps after requests. , 2013, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[40]  S. Levinson Action formation and ascription , 2013 .

[41]  S. Clayman Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms , 2013 .

[42]  E. Couper-Kuhlen What does grammar tell us about action , 2014 .

[43]  Nick Llewellyn Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology , 2014 .