Page 74 - Studia Universitatis Hereditati, vol. 4(1) (2016)
P. 74
dia universitatis her editati, letnik 4 (2016), številk a 1 74nology, and ethnography, to being studied as ative research that proves these findings as they
purely linguistic part of performance. Each of are mainly reported by ethnography and anthro-
hereditatithese disciplines conducted their research depen-pology. What is also important for our study is
ding on the field of interest and the goal or aim that these differences in turn-taking (general-
they wanted to achieve. In this respect anthro- ly presumed) are language related, mainly be-
pologists try to confirm that languages and cul- cause the paralinguistic aspects of languages are
tures are ultimately built around each other. In- strongly related to culture. That is why the cul-
tercultural discourse analysts and sociolinguists tural diversity should be studied separately from
try to understand negative stereotypes and mi- language. This is possible by analysing turn-tak-
sunderstandings in intercultural communica- ings in groups of speakers of different regions
tion as differences in cultural perceptions, etc. but of the same language.
However, common to all these disciplines is one
simple question underlined from the beginning. Universal hypothesis in turn-taking
Is turn-taking (as a paralinguistic unit) universal In contrast to the previous claims on diversity,
to all cultures and languages, or are there cultu- there are many arguments that confirm a uni-
ral and linguistic variations? If there are, are they versal system for turn-taking. According to
culturally or linguistically motivated? Schegloff,6 this system should be based on the
norm “minimal-gap minimal-overlap”. There-
Cultural diversity in turn-taking fore, there should be a functional basis for turns
Different disciplines present plenty of literature to be immediately adjacent (rather than overlap-
for both claims or points of views. Nordic cul- ping or overly separated).7 The lack of systematic
tures are said to produce long delays in commu- research regarding the cross-linguistic compari-
nication between one turn and the next.1In New son has been resolved with the study of Stivers
York Jewish conversation there is a report on et al.8 The study compared speakers of ten differ-
“fast rate of turn-taking”,2 while the inhabitants ent languages (using the multivariate analysis of
of an Antiguan village tend to have an “anarchic” four types of question-answer). For example, the
conversation, where two or more voices easily go mean time of turn transition for responses coded
on at the same time.3 In that respect the Italians as answers versus responses coded as non-answer
seem to be more tolerant to overlap,4 while the responses, or for questions coded with speakers’
Japanese are said to leave longer gaps of silence gaze versus questions coded without speakers’
before responding.5 Before we proceed, we must gaze, etc. It confirmed that turn-taking system
underline that there is no comparative quantita- in those languages occurs generally with mini-
mal delay or overlap and suggested that the lan-
1 Karl Sajavaara and Jaakko Lehtonen, “The silent Finn revisited,” in guage structure does not explain the variance
Silence: interdisciplinary perspectives, ed. A. Jaworski (Berlin, NY: they have observed, for example slower respons-
Mouton de Gruyter, 1997). es for languages that use sentence final markers.
2 Deborah Tannen, “Interpreting Interruption in Conversation,” They suggest that the differences involve
25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Socie- a different cultural “calibration” of delay, thus
ty (1989), 267-287. constituting minor variation in the local imple-
mentation of a universal underlying turn-tak-
3 Karl Reisman, “Contrapuntal conversations in an Antiguan vil-
lage,” in Exploration in the Ethnography of Speaking, eds. R. Ba- 6 Emanuel A. Schegloff, “Sequencing in Conversational Openings,”
uman and J. Sherzer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, American Anthropologist, 70 (1968): 1075-1095.
1974).
7 Tanya Stivers et al, “Universals and cultural variation in turn taking
4 Alessia Agliati, Antonietta Vescovo and Luigi Anolli. “Conversa- in conversation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Scien-
tion patterns in Icelandic and Italian people: Similarities and diffe- ces, 106 (26), (2009): 10587-10592.
rences in Rhythm and Accommodation,” in The hidden structure
of interaction: From neurons to culture patterns, eds. L. Anolli, S. 8 Stivers et al, “Universals and cultural variation in turn taking in con-
Duncan, M.S. Manguson, G. Riva (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2005). versation.”
5 Gudykunst, William B. and Tsukasa Nishida, Bridging Japanese/
North American Differences (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,
1994).
purely linguistic part of performance. Each of are mainly reported by ethnography and anthro-
hereditatithese disciplines conducted their research depen-pology. What is also important for our study is
ding on the field of interest and the goal or aim that these differences in turn-taking (general-
they wanted to achieve. In this respect anthro- ly presumed) are language related, mainly be-
pologists try to confirm that languages and cul- cause the paralinguistic aspects of languages are
tures are ultimately built around each other. In- strongly related to culture. That is why the cul-
tercultural discourse analysts and sociolinguists tural diversity should be studied separately from
try to understand negative stereotypes and mi- language. This is possible by analysing turn-tak-
sunderstandings in intercultural communica- ings in groups of speakers of different regions
tion as differences in cultural perceptions, etc. but of the same language.
However, common to all these disciplines is one
simple question underlined from the beginning. Universal hypothesis in turn-taking
Is turn-taking (as a paralinguistic unit) universal In contrast to the previous claims on diversity,
to all cultures and languages, or are there cultu- there are many arguments that confirm a uni-
ral and linguistic variations? If there are, are they versal system for turn-taking. According to
culturally or linguistically motivated? Schegloff,6 this system should be based on the
norm “minimal-gap minimal-overlap”. There-
Cultural diversity in turn-taking fore, there should be a functional basis for turns
Different disciplines present plenty of literature to be immediately adjacent (rather than overlap-
for both claims or points of views. Nordic cul- ping or overly separated).7 The lack of systematic
tures are said to produce long delays in commu- research regarding the cross-linguistic compari-
nication between one turn and the next.1In New son has been resolved with the study of Stivers
York Jewish conversation there is a report on et al.8 The study compared speakers of ten differ-
“fast rate of turn-taking”,2 while the inhabitants ent languages (using the multivariate analysis of
of an Antiguan village tend to have an “anarchic” four types of question-answer). For example, the
conversation, where two or more voices easily go mean time of turn transition for responses coded
on at the same time.3 In that respect the Italians as answers versus responses coded as non-answer
seem to be more tolerant to overlap,4 while the responses, or for questions coded with speakers’
Japanese are said to leave longer gaps of silence gaze versus questions coded without speakers’
before responding.5 Before we proceed, we must gaze, etc. It confirmed that turn-taking system
underline that there is no comparative quantita- in those languages occurs generally with mini-
mal delay or overlap and suggested that the lan-
1 Karl Sajavaara and Jaakko Lehtonen, “The silent Finn revisited,” in guage structure does not explain the variance
Silence: interdisciplinary perspectives, ed. A. Jaworski (Berlin, NY: they have observed, for example slower respons-
Mouton de Gruyter, 1997). es for languages that use sentence final markers.
2 Deborah Tannen, “Interpreting Interruption in Conversation,” They suggest that the differences involve
25th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Socie- a different cultural “calibration” of delay, thus
ty (1989), 267-287. constituting minor variation in the local imple-
mentation of a universal underlying turn-tak-
3 Karl Reisman, “Contrapuntal conversations in an Antiguan vil-
lage,” in Exploration in the Ethnography of Speaking, eds. R. Ba- 6 Emanuel A. Schegloff, “Sequencing in Conversational Openings,”
uman and J. Sherzer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, American Anthropologist, 70 (1968): 1075-1095.
1974).
7 Tanya Stivers et al, “Universals and cultural variation in turn taking
4 Alessia Agliati, Antonietta Vescovo and Luigi Anolli. “Conversa- in conversation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Scien-
tion patterns in Icelandic and Italian people: Similarities and diffe- ces, 106 (26), (2009): 10587-10592.
rences in Rhythm and Accommodation,” in The hidden structure
of interaction: From neurons to culture patterns, eds. L. Anolli, S. 8 Stivers et al, “Universals and cultural variation in turn taking in con-
Duncan, M.S. Manguson, G. Riva (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2005). versation.”
5 Gudykunst, William B. and Tsukasa Nishida, Bridging Japanese/
North American Differences (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications,
1994).
