An action-specific examination of the role of answerers’ gaze orientation in managing transition relevance

ABSTRACT

We use conversation analysis to both qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrate that, in a specific action context, an answerer’s gaze orientation at the end of their answer’s first verbal turn-constructional unit (TCU) is one cooperating element of a multi-resource gestalt for managing the answer-turn’s transition relevance. Specifically, gazing at (vs. away from) a questioner claims that the initial TCU is (or is not yet) transition-relevant. Findings suggest that an additional resource is prior context in the form of the amount of delay (in milliseconds) of an answer relative to its question. Other potential resources, such as the TCU’s type conformity generally and its specific status as a “Yes”- or “No”-type answer, were not associated with transition relevance. Data are 274 polar, question–answer sequences—representing the very delimited social action of relatively genuine information-seeking—drawn from videotapes of completely unstructured, face-to-face interactions between dyads of native English-speaking, adult close friends.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. A version of this article was presented at the 2023 International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA), Brisbane, Australia. We thank John Heritage and Kobin Kendrick for comments on an earlier draft.

2. Admittedly, the work of Duncan (1972) was also published prior to that of Sacks et al. (1974). Much of Duncan’s research used “head direction” as a proxy for gaze orientation. Duncan and Niederehe (1974) did not examine “head direction” in isolation, but rather as one of several “speaker-state signals.”

3. Bavelas et al. (2002) did not examine turn endings at all, but rather moments when storytellers gazed at recipients, which prompted them to respond 83.1% of the time.

4. For example, at line 4 in Extract A, using ELAN, there is no measurable silence between the end of Lydia’s “Ye:ah” (line 4) and the beginning of her “they” (symbolized in the transcript by the equals sign), and her intonation does not perceptibly rise or fall (i.e., it remains level) across, and at the end of, “Ye:ah”. Gaze was measured at the end of “Ye:ah”. These cases did not affect our coding because the ends of the answers’ initial verbal TCUs were clearly identifiable.Extract A: Certain Philosophies [CAS.55.Split.15:35]

5. In only one case coded as “gazing away,” the answerer closed their eyes as part of a short blink (Homke et al., 2018) that was not associated with an eyeball shift upon reopening their eyes. The remaining 88 cases of “gazing away” included eyeball shifting (sometimes along with eye closure).

6. Camilla’s question (lines 1–2) is not part of an alternative question, but rather a reformulation of an immediately prior unanswered question.

7. See also Schegloff (1982, p. 86) and Schegloff (1991, p. 166).