A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation

Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

1974

DOI

10.2307/412243

DOI registrant

Cambridge University Press

Link

https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Domain-specific

• Interpersonal Communication
  • The field's theoretical apparatus — Goffman's interaction ritual and face; Watzlawick's axioms of communication; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson's conversation analysis; relational dialectics — all converge on the claim that the dyadic exchange is an irreducibly joint achievement rather than the sum of two individual transmissions

    Supported in partVerified against the source

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Social Communication
  • The theoretical scaffolding that makes the relational-pragmatic layer tractable in clinical and assessment practice draws on several converging frameworks: Grice's cooperative maxims (quantity, quality, relation, manner) specify the implicatures a speaker is expected to generate and the violations that produce pragmatic failures; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson's conversation-analytic turn-taking model specifies the adjacency-pair structure and transition-relevance-point mechanisms that govern who speaks when

    This sourceConversation-analysis paper proposing the turn-taking organisation for conversation as locally managed, party-administered, interactionally controlled, and sensitive to recipient design.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    “A model for the turn-taking organization for conversation is proposed, and is examined for its compatibility with a list of grossly observable facts about conversation.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:9fa7a04ff944 · see in the full table