lournal o/ Personality and Social Psychology 1972, Vol. 23, No. 2, 283-292 SOME SIGNALS AND RULES FOR TAKING SPEAKING TURNS IN CONVERSATIONS1 STARKEY DUNCAN, JR." University of Chicago The turn-taking mechanism, whereby participants manage the smooth and appropriate exchange of speaking turns in face-to-face interaction, was studied. Three basic signals for this mechanism are described: (o) turn-yielding signals by the speaker, (6) attempt-suppressing signals by the speaker, and (c) back- channel signals by the auditor. These signals are used and responded to in a relatively structured manner, describable in terms of a set of rules. Behaviors in every communication modality examined—content, syntax, intonation, para- language, and body motion—were active as elements of the turn-taking signals. E. Goffman (personal communication, has commented that this phenomenon "is August 7, 1969) has asked rhetorically how nearly the most obvious aspect of conversa- people manage to walk down the street with- tion [p. 568J." Jaffe and Feldstein (1970) out continually bumping into each other. also refer to the saliency of turn taking and Part of the answer is that in our culture the importance of avoiding interruptions. there are rules for walking down the street They cite Sullivan (1947), who observed and for managing situations in which indi- careful turn taking in conversations between viduals find themselves on collision courses. chronic mental hospital patients, and Miller Goffman (1963) has suggested some rules (1963), who suggests that turn taking is a for these situations. language universal. Kendon (1967) deals in Just as it is desirable to avoid bumping detail with the role of gaze direction in turn into people on the street, it is desirable to taking. Schegloff (1968) proposed the "basic avoid in conversations an inordinate amount rule for conversations: one party at a time of simultaneous talking. Beyond consider- [p. 1076, italics in original]," and discussed ations of etiquette, it is difficult to maintain some implications of this rule. Leighton, adequate mutual comprehensibility when Stollak, and Ferguson (1971) found more participants in a conversation are talking at interrupting and simultaneous talking in the the same time. interaction of families waiting for psycho- The fact that participants in a conversa- therapy than in the interaction of "normal" tion tend to take turns in speaking and listen- families. ing has been frequently observed and dis- The question may be asked, again rhetori- cussed by other investigators. Yngve (1970) cally, how participants in a conversation can 1 This study was supported in part by Grants avoid continually bumping into each other in MH-16,210 and MH-l7,756 from the National In- a verbal sense. The thesis of this paper is stitute of Mental Health, and by Grant GS-3033 that there is a regular communication mecha- from the Division of Social Sciences of the National nism in our culture for managing the taking Science Foundation. The author is grateful to Erving Goffman, Adam Kendon, and Allen Dittmann, who of speaking turns in face-to-face interaction made valuable constructive criticisms of an earlier (Goffman, 1963). Through this mechanism, draft of this paper. The author wishes to express participants in an interaction can effect the his appreciation to Susan Beekman, Mark Cary, smooth and appropriate exchange of speaking Diane Martin, Ray O'Cain, Tom Shanks, and An- turns. (The term "turn taking" has been drew Szasz, who contributed to the transcriptions and data analysis. I am endebted to Dick Jenney, independently suggested by Yngve, 1970, and Wayne Anderson, and the client, who generously by Goffman, personal communication, June 5, consented to serve as participants in this study. 1970). 2 Requests for reprints should be sent to Starkey The proposed turn-taking mechanism is Duncan, Jr., Department of Psychology, University of Chicago, 5848 South University Avenue, Chicago, mediated through signals composed of clear- Illinois 60637. cut behavioral cues, considered to be per- 283 284 STARKEY DUNCAN, JR. ceived as discrete. The turn-taking signals address, etc., to more emotionally laden discussion of are used and responded to according to rules. the client's reasons for applying for therapy. At the same time, there is a strong intrinsic motivation for Signals, cues, and rules are described in de- the interview, namely, an application for therapy, tail below. thereby avoiding the more artificial experimental Turn taking is considered to be one of a situation in which unacquainted subjects are brought number of communication mechanisms, such together and asked to discuss anything which might as those discussed by Scheflen (1968), oper- be of mutual interest. The client was in her early twenties, working as ating in face-to-face interaction. These mecha- a secretary, and had not completed college. The nisms serve the function of integrating the therapist-interviewer was a 40-year-old-male, an performances of the participants in a variety experienced therapist, who had been doing prelimi- of ways, for example, regulating the pace at nary interviews for many years. which the communication proceeds, and moni- The second interview was between the therapist who participated in the first interview, and a second toring deviations from appropriate conduct. male therapist, also 40 years old. The two therapists Goffman (19SS) commented on these inte- were good friends and had known each other for grating mechanisms in general and on turn about 10 years. Their interaction was relaxed and taking in particular: lively. The topic in this case was another client whom the first therapist had seen in a preliminary In any society, whenever the physical possibility interview, and whom the second therapist had at that of spoken interaction arises, it seems that a system time seen in therapy for two interviews. of practices, conventions, and procedural rules comes The preliminary interview is designated at Inter- into play which functions as a means of guiding and view 1, and the second, peer interaction, is desig- organizing the flow of messages [p. 2261. nated as Interview 2. The client is designated as Participant A; the preliminary interviewer, B; and The notion that a set of rules operates to the second therapist, C. Thus, the participants in integrate the turn-taking behavior of partici- Interview 1 were A and B, and the participants in pants in a conversation is supported by Jaffe Interview 2 were B and C. and Feldstein (1970), who also studied tem- Videotaping poral patterns of speech and silence in dyadic To videotape the interactions, the camera was conversations. Although they limited their placed so that both participants in each interaction data to the information provided by a "pair were fully visible from head to foot on the tape of voice-actuated relays which treat any sound at all times. No zoom techniques or other special above threshold as equivalent [p. 113]," focusing effects were used. A single camera was set their findings suggested to them up in full view of the participants. The camera and tape were left running prior to the participants' entry further interactional rules that govern the matching into the room and were not touched again until of speech rates of the participants, the prohibition after the interview. of interruption, and the requirement for properly Despite the fact that a wide-angle lens was used, timed signals that acknowledge understanding and the camera was necessarily at such distance from confirm the continued attention of the listener [p. 6]. the participants that more subtle details of facial expressions were not discriminable on the videotape. SOURCE OF DATA Less subtle expressions, such as broad smiles and grimaces, were readily discernable. In contrast, very Interviews small movements of the hands and fingers, for The results to be reported were based on meticu- example, were clearly evident on the tapes, so that lous transcriptions of speech and body motion be- fine discriminations of these movements could be haviors during the first 19 minutes of two dyadic made and were on the transcription. A high-quality interviews, as recorded on videotape. monophonic, audiotrack was obtained on the video- The first interview was a preliminary interview tape. held at the Counseling and Psychotherapy Research Center at the University of Chicago. This prelimi- Transcription nary interview is part of the routine intake procedure For this study, the principal requirements for the at the Counseling and Psychotherapy Research transcription were those of maximum behavioral Center, and the client was a regular applicant for therapy. A preliminary interview was chosen for breadth and of continuity (no breaks or interrup- intensive transcription of communication behaviors tions). Maximum breadth is desirable in analysis because within a rather compressed period of time because it is not yet known which behavioral cues a wide variety of types of interaction may be en- are the primary mediators of any given communica- countered, from simple information giving, such as tion function. Continuity of transcription permits SOME SIGNALS AND RULES IN CONVERSATIONS 285 the complete analysis of sequences of events: the tic behaviors was actually encountered in the two basic concern of this study. dyads and included in the transcriptions. In terms of size, two 19-minute transcriptions of interaction are simultaneously very small and very Body Motion large, depending upon one's perspective. From the In contrast to paralanguage, there was no available point of view of the wealth of communication en- transcription system for body motion which could gaged in each day by an individual, the transcrip- be readily applied to our videotapes. This situation tions are quite brief. On the other hand, these tran- led to a transcribing method based on the behaviors scriptions are believed to be unique in their breadth actually found in each interview. The transcription and duration.