Abstract
Conversation-analytic research has argued that the timing and construction of preferred responding actions (e.g., acceptances) differ from that of dispreferred responding actions (e.g., rejections), potentially enabling early response prediction by recipients. We examined 195 preferred and dispreferred responding actions in telephone corpora and found that the timing of the most frequent cases of each type did not differ systematically. Only for turn transitions of 700 ms or more was the proportion of dispreferred responding actions clearly greater than that of preferreds. In contrast, an analysis of the timing that included turn formats (i.e., those with or without qualification) revealed clearer differences. Small departures from a normal gap duration decrease the likelihood of a preferred action in a preferred turn format (e.g., a simple “yes”). We propose that the timing of a response is best understood as a turn-constructional feature, the first virtual component of a preferred or dispreferred turn format.
Highlights
The basic insight of research on preference in conversation analysis (CA) is that the practices speakers use in interaction exhibit systematic asymmetries that serve to maximize opportunities for affiliative actions and minimize opportunities for disaffilative ones (Heritage, 1984)
Considering turn-initial breaths (TIBs) and turn-initial particles (TIPs) together, we found that the majority of dispreferreds (65.2%) include at least one of these features, whereas only 23.6 percent of preferreds do
The results of the analysis of the timing of preferred and dispreferred actions did not provide clear evidence that speakers systematically delay the onset of dispreferreds responding actions
Summary
The basic insight of research on preference in conversation analysis (CA) is that the practices speakers use in interaction exhibit systematic asymmetries that serve to maximize opportunities for affiliative actions and minimize opportunities for disaffilative ones (Heritage, 1984). A basic observation in the literature on preference is that responding actions that align with (accept, agree with, grant, etc.) an initiating action tend to take a different form than those that fail to align (reject, disagree with, deny, etc.). This observation has frequently been illustrated through a comparison of two paradigm cases drawn from the same telephone call, presented here in Extracts (1) and (2)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
