There have been relatively few studies on sign language interaction carried out within the framework of conversation analysis (CA). Therefore, questions remain open about how the basic building blocks of social interaction such as turn, turn construction unit (TCU) and turn transition relevance place (TRP) can be understood and analysed in sign language interaction. Recent studies have shown that signers regularly fine-tune their turn-beginnings to potential completion points of turns (De Vos, Torreira & Levinson, 2015; Groeber, 2014; Groeber & Pochon-Berger, (...) 2014). Moreover, signers deploy practices for overlap resolution as in spoken interaction (McCleary & Leite, 2013). While these studies have highlighted the signers’ orientation to the ‘one-at-a-time’ principle described by Sacks et al., (1974), the present article adds to this line of research by investigating in more detail those sequential environments where overlaps occur. The contribution provides an overview of different types of overlap with a focus of the overlap’s onset with regard to a current signer’s turn. On the basis of a 33-minute video-recording of a multi-party interaction between 4 female signers in Swiss German Sign Language (DSGS), the paper provides evidence for the orderliness of overlapping signing. Furthermore, the contribution demonstrates how participants collaborate in the situated construction of turns as a dynamic and emergent gestalt and how they interactionally achieve turn transition. Thereby the study adds to recent research in spoken and in signed interaction that proposes to rethink turn boundaries and turn transition as flexible and interactionally achieved. (shrink)

The core niche for language use is in verbal interaction, involving the rapid exchange of turns at talking. This paper reviews the extensive literature about this system, adding new statistical analyses of behavioral data where they have been missing, demonstrating that turn-taking has the systematic properties originally noted by Sacks et al. (1974 ; hereafter SSJ). This system poses some significant puzzles for current theories of language processing: the gaps between turns are short (of the order of 200 ms), but (...) the latencies involved in language production are much longer (over 600 ms). This seems to imply that participants in conversation must predict (or ‘project’ as SSJ have it) the end of the current speaker’s turn in order to prepare their response in advance. This in turn implies some overlap between production and comprehension despite their use of common processing resources. Collecting together what is known behaviorally and experimentally about the system, the space for systematic explanations of language processing for conversation can be significantly narrowed, and we sketch some first model of the mental processes involved for the participant preparing to speak next. (shrink)