Timing in Conversation

Antje S. Meyer

doi:10.5334/joc.268

Timing in Conversation

Journal of Cognition

Volume 6 (2023): Issue 1

By: Antje S. Meyer

Open Access

|Apr 2023

Abstract

Turn-taking in everyday conversation is fast, with median latencies in corpora of conversational speech often reported to be under 300 ms. This seems like magic, given that experimental research on speech planning has shown that speakers need much more time to plan and produce even the shortest of utterances. This paper reviews how language scientists have combined linguistic analyses of conversations and experimental work to understand the skill of swift turn-taking and proposes a tentative solution to the riddle of fast turn-taking.

References

Albert, S., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2018). Repair: The interface between interaction and cognition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10, 279–313. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12339
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Almor, A. (2008). Why does language interfere with vision-based tasks? Experimental Psychology, 55(4), 260–268. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169.55.4.260
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Arnold, J. E., Tanenhaus, M. K., Altmann, R. J., & Fagnano, M. (2004). The old and thee, uh, new: Disfluency and reference resolution. Psychological Science, 15, 578–582. DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00723.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Clarendon Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bangerter, A., & Clark, H. H. (2003). Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cognitive Science, 27(2), 195–225. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog2702_3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barthel, M., & Levinson, S. C. (2020). Next speakers plan word forms in overlap with the incoming turn: evidence from gaze-contingent switch task performance. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(9), 1183–1202. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2020.1716030
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barthel, M., Meyer, A. S., & Levinson, S. C. (2017). Next speakers plan their turn early speak after turn-final “go-signals”. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 393. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00393
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barthel, M., & Sauppe, S. (2019). Speech planning at turn transitions in dialog is associated with increased processing load. Cognitive Science, 43(7), e12768. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12768
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Barthel, M., Sauppe, S., Levinson, S. C., & Meyer, A. S. (2016). The timing of utterance planning in task-oriented dialogue: Evidence from a novel list-completion paradigm. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01858
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bartolozzi, F., Jongman, S. R., & Meyer, A. S. (2021). Concurrent speech planning does not elimiate repetition priming from spoken words: Evidence from linguistic dual-tasking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 47(3), 466–480. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000944
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bögels, S. (2020). Neural correlates of turn-taking in the wild: Response planning starts early in free interviews. Cognition, 203, 104347. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104347
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bögels, S., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Planning versus comprehension in turn-taking: Fast responders show reduced anticipatory processing of the question. Neuropsychologia, 109, 295–310. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.12.028
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bögels, S., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Never say no … How the brain interprets the pregnant pause in conversation. PlosOne, 10(12), e0145474. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145474
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bögels, S., Magyari, L., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1–11. DOI: 10.1038/srep12881
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bögels, S., & Torreira, F. (2015). Listeners use intonational phrase boundaries to project turn ends in spoken interaction. Journal of Phonetics, 52, 46–57. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2015.04.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bögels, S., & Torreira, F. (2021). Turn-end estimation in conversational turn-taking: The roles of context prosody. Discourse Processes, 58(10), 903–924. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2021.1986664
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boiteau, T. W., Malone, P. S., Peters, S. A., & Almor, A. (2014). Interference between conversation and a concurrent visuomotor task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 295–311. DOI: 10.1037/a0031858
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Boland, J. E., Fonseca, P., Mermelstein, I., & Williamson, M. (2021). Zoom disrupts the rhythm of conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001150
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brehm, L., & Meyer, A. S. (2021). Planning when to say: Dissociating cue use in utterance initiation using cross-validation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(9), 1772–1799. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001012
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (2015). Processes of incremental message planning during conversation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(3), 833–843. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-014-0714-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Burki, A., Elbuy, S., Madec, S., & Vasishth, S. (2020). What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 114, 104125. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Calhoun, S., Carletta, J., Brenier, J. M., Mayo, N., Jurafsky, D., Steedman, M., & Beaver, D. (2010). The NXT-format switchboard corpus: A rich resource for investigating the syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and prosody of dialogue. Language Resources and Evaluation, 44, 387–419. DOI: 10.1007/s10579-010-9120-1
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cohen, L., Salondy, P., Pallier, C., & Dehaene, S. (2021). How does inattention affect written and spoken language processing? Cortex, 138, 212–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2021.02.007
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Corps, R. E., Crossley, A., Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2018). Early preparation during turn-taking: Listeners use content predictions to determine what to say but not when to say it. Cognition, 175, 77–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.01.015
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Corps, R. E., Gambi, M. J., & Pickering, M. J. (2020). How do listeners time response articulation when answering questions? The role of speech rate. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 46(4), 781–802. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000759
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Corps, R. E., Knudsen, B., & Meyer, A. S. (2022). Overrated gaps: Inter-speaker gaps provide limited information about the timing of turns in conversation. Cognition, 223, 105037. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105037
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Corps, R. E., Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2019). Predicting turn-ends in discourse context. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(5), 615–627. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1552008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Crible, L. (2019). Discourse markers and (dis)fluency. Forms and functions across languages and registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.286
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Crible, L., & Pascual, E. (2020). Combinations of discourse markers with repairs and repetitions in English, French and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 54–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dahan, D., & Ferreira, F. (2019). Language comprehension: Insights from research on spoken language. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human Language: From Genes and Brains to Behavior (pp. 21–33). MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10841.003.0005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
De Ruiter, J. P., & Albert, S. (2017). An appeal for a methodological fusing of conversation analysis and experimental psychology. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50, 90–107. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2017.1262050
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
De Ruiter, J. P., Mitterer, H., & Enfield, N. J. (2006). Projecting the end of a speaker’s turn: A cognitive cornerstone of conversation. Language, 82, 515–535. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2006.0130
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Donders, F. C. (1868). Over de snelheid van psychische processe. [On the speed of psychical processes]. Onderzoeking gedaan in het Physiologisch Laboratorium der Utrechtsche Hoogeschool, 1868–1869. [Research conducted in the Physiological Laboratorium of Utrechtsche Hoogeschool] Tweede reeks [Second series], II, (pp. 92–120), cited in Roelofs, 2018.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Drew, P. (2009). Quit talking while I’m interrupting: a comparison between positions of overlap onset in conversation. In M. Haakana, M. Laakso & J. Lindström (Eds.), Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions (pp. 70–93). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fairs, A., Bögels, S., & Meyer, A. S. (2018). Dual-tasking with simple linguistic tasks: Evidence for serial processing. Acta Psychologica, 191, 131–148. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.09.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fargier, R., & Laganaro, M. (2016). Neurophysiological modulations of non-verbal and verbal dual-tasks interference during word planning. PloS One, 11. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168358
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ferreira, F. (1991). Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(2), 210–233. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(91)90004-4
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ferreira, V. S., & Bock, K. (2006). The functions of structural priming. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(7–8), 1011–1029. DOI: 10.1080/016909600824609
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ferreira, V. S., & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), 1187. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.28.6.1187
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62, 151–167. DOI: 10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00781-0
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Francis, W. S., Gurrola, B. V., & Martinez, M. (2022). Comprehension exposures to words in sentence contexts impact spoken word production. Memory & Cognition, 50(1), 192–215. DOI: 10.3758/s13421-021-01214-w
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 8–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.016
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2009). Joint action, interactive alignment, and dialog. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 292–304. DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01020.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gisladottir, R. S., Bögels, S., & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Oscillatory brain responses reflect anticipation during comprehension of speech acts in spoken dialog. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00034
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gisladottir, R. S., Chwilla, D. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). Conversation electrified: ERP correlates of speech act recognition in underspecified utterances. Plos One, 10. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120068
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2011). Turn-taking cues in task-oriented dialogue. Computer Speech and Language, 25, 601–634. DOI: 10.1016/j.csl.2010.10.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hardy, S. M., Wheeldon, L., & Segaert, K. (2020). Structural priming is determined by global syntax rather than internal phrasal structure: Evidence from young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 46(4), 720–740. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000754
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
He, J., Meyer, A. S., Creemers, A., & Brehm, L. (2021). Conducting language production research online: A web-based study of semantic context and name agreement effects in multi-word production. Collabra: Psychology, 7(1), 29935. DOI: 10.1525/collabra.29935
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Heldner, M., & Edlund, J. (2010). Pauses, gaps and overlaps in conversations. Journal of Phonetics, 38(4), 555–568. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2010.08.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holler, J., Alday, P. M., Decuyper, C., Geiger, M., Kendrick, K. H., & Meyer, A. S. (2021), Competition reduces response times in multiparty conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 693124. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.693124
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holler, J., & Levinson, S. C. (2019). Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive Science, 23(8), 639–652. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., & Levinson, S. C. (2018). Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25, 1900–1908. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1363-z
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Horton, W. S. (2017). Theories and approaches to the study of conversation and interactive discourse. In M. F. Schober, D. N. Rapp & M. A. Britt (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Processes (2nd Edition; pp. 22–68). Routledge Press. DOI: 10.4324/9781315687384-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Hubbard, R. J., & Federmeier, K. D. (2021). Dividing attention influences contextual facilitation and revision during language comprehension. Brain Research, 1764, 147466. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2021.147466
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huettig, F. (2015). Four central questions about prediction in language processing. Brain Research, 1626, 118–135. DOI: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.02.014
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Huettig, F., Audring, J., & Jackendoff, R. (2022). A parallel architecture perspective on pre-activation and prediction in language processing. Cognition, 224, 105050. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105050
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Indefrey, P. (2011). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components: a critical update. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 255. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00255
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92, 101–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ivanova, I., Horton, W. S., Swets, B., Kleinman, D., & Ferreira, V. S. (2020). Structural alignment in dialogue and monologue (and what attention may have to do with it). Journal of Memory and Language, 110, 104052. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2019.104052
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jacobs, C. L., Cho, S. J., & Watson, D. G. (2019). Self-Priming in production: Evidence for a hybrid model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 43(7). E12749. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12749
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jacquemot, C., & Bachaud-Levi, A. C. (2021). Striatum and language processing: Where do we stand? Cognition, 213, 104785. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104785
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jefferson, G. (1986). Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies, 153–183. DOI: 10.1007/BF00148125
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jefferson, G. (2004). A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 43–59). Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.125.05jef
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jongman, S. R., Piai, V., & Meyer, A. S. (2020). Planning for language production: The electrophysiological signature of attention to the cue to speak. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(7), 915–932. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1690153
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kandylaki, K. D., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. (2019). From story comprehension to the neurobiology of language. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(4), 405–410. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1584679
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kawamoto, A. H., Liu, Q., & Kello, C. T. (2015). The segment as the minimal planning unit in speech production and reading aloud: evidence and implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1457. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01457
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kendrick, K. H., & Holler, J. (2017). Gaze direction signals response preference in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 12–32. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2017.1262120
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kendrick, K. H., & Torreira, F. (2015). The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes, 52(4), 255–289. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2014.955997
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Knudsen, B., Creemers, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2020). Forgotten little words: How backchannels and particles may facilitate speech planning in conversation? Frontiers, 11. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.593671
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Konopka, A. E. (2019). Encoding actions and verbs: Tracking the time-course of relational encoding during message and sentence formulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(8), 1486–1510. DOI: 10.1037/xlm0000650
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krause, P. A., & Kawamoto, A. H. (2020). On the timing and coordination of articulatory movements: Historical perspectives and current theoretical challenges. Language and Linguistics Compass, 14(6), e12373. DOI: 10.1111/lnc3.12373
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuhlen, A. K., Bogler, C., Brennan, S. E., & Haynes, J. D. (2017). Brains in dialogue. Decoding neural preparation of speaking to a conversational partner. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 12, 871–880. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-012-0341-8
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuhlen, A. K., & Rahman, R. A. (2022). Mental chronometry of speaking in dialogue: Semantic interference turns into facilitation. Cognition, 219. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104962
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kuperberg, G. R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2015). What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 31, 32–59. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kurtić, E., & Gorisch, J. (2018). F0 accommodation and turn competition in overlapping talk. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 376–394. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2018.09.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lee, E. K., Brown-Schmidt, S., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Ways of looking ahead: Hierarchical planning in language production. Cognition, 129(3), 544–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.007
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X99001776
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levinson, S. C. (2016). Turn-taking in human communication–origins and implications for language processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 6–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015). Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language. Frontiers in Psychology, 6. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magyari, L., Bastiaansen, M. C. M., de Ruiter, J. P., & Levinson, S. C. (2014). Early anticipation lies behind the speed of response in conversation. Journal of Cognition and Neuroscience, 26, 2530–2539. DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_00673
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magyari, L., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2012). Prediction of turn-ends based on anticipation of upcoming words. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 376. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00376
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Magyari, L., de Ruiter, J. P., & Levinson, S. C. (2017). Temporal preparation for speaking in question-answer sequences. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 211. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00211
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mahon, B. Z., Costa, A., Peterson, R., Varga, K. A., & Caramazza, A. (2007). Lexical selection is not by competition: A reinterpretation of semantic interference and facilitation effects in the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(3), 503–535. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.503
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Meyer, A. S., Alday, P. M., Decuyper, C., & Knudsen, B. (2018). Working together: Contributions of corpus analyses and experimental psycholinguistics to understanding conversation. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00525
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nota, N., Trujllo, J. P., & Holler, J. (2021). Facial Signals and Social Actions in Multimodal Face-to-Face Interaction. Brain Sciences, 11, 8.1017. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci11081017
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Papafragou, A., & Grigoroglou, M. (2019). The role of conceptualization during language production: evidence from event encoding. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(9), 1117–1128. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2019.1589540
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Piai, V., Roelofs, A., Rommers, J., Dahlstaett, K., & Maris, E. (2015). Withholding planned speech is reflected in synchronized beta-band oscillations. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00549
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 427–459. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–226. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X04000056
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rasenberg, M., Ozyurek, A., Bogels, S., & Dingemanse, M. (2022). The primacy of multimodal alignment in converging on shared symbols for novel referents. Discourse Processes, 59, 209–236. DOI: 10.1080/0163853X.2021.1992235
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Riest, C., Jorschick, A. B., & de Ruiter, J. P. (2015). Anticipation in turn-taking: mechanisms and information sources. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 89. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00089
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roberts, S. G., Torreira, F., & Levinson, S. C. (2015). The effects of processing and sequence organization on the timing of turn taking: a corpus study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 509. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00509
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1), 107–142. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-F
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roelofs, A. (2018). One hundred fifty years after Donders: Insight from unpublished data, a replication, and modeling of his reaction times. Acta Psychologica, 191, 228–233. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.10.002
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roelofs, A. (2021). How Attention Controls Naming: Lessons From Wundt 2.0. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(10), 1927–1955. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001030
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roelofs, A., & Ferreira, V. S. (2019). The architecture of speaking. In P. Hagoort (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brains to behavior (pp. 35–50). MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/10841.003.0006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roelofs, A., & Piai, V. (2011). Attention demands of spoken word planning: a review. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 307. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00307
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Romani, C., Silverstein, P., Ramoo, D., & Olson, A. (2022). Effects of delay, length, and frequency on onset RTs and word durations: Articulatory planning uses flexible units but cannot be prepared. Cognitive Neuropsychology. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/g42fb
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rühlemann, C., & Gries, S. T. (2020). Speakers advance-project turn completion by slowing down: A multifactorial corpus analysis. Journal of Phonetics, 80, 100976. DOI: 10.1016/j.wocn.2020.100976
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sacks, H. J., Schlegoff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50008-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075–1095. DOI: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing text and talk (pp. 71–93). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500001019
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction. A primer in conversation analysis. Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. DOI: 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289–327. DOI: 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 86–102. DOI: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Segaert, K., Wheeldon, L., & Hagoort, P. (2016). Unifying structural priming effects on syntactic choices and timing of sentence generation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 59–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2016.03.011
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sjerps, M. J., Decuyper, C., & Meyer, A. S. (2019). Initiation of utterance planning in response to pre-recorded and “live” utterances. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(3), 357–374. DOI: 10.1177/1747021819881265
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sjerps, M. J., & Meyer, A. S. (2015). Variation in dual-task performance reveals late initiation of speech planning in turn-taking. Cognition, 136, 304–324. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Skantze, G. (2021). Turn-taking in conversational systems and human-robot interaction: Review: A review. Computer Speech & Language, 67, 101178. DOI: 10.1016/j.csl.2020.101178
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stivers, T., Enfield, N. J., Brown, P., Englert, C., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., … & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Universals and cultural variation in turn-taking in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 10587–10592. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0903616106
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(1), 3–31. DOI: 10.1080/08351810903471258
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Templeton, E. M., Chang, L. J., Reynolds, E. A., Cone LeBeaumont, M. D., & Wheatley, T. (2022). Fast response times signal social connection in conversation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119, 4, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2116915119
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2014). Addressee backchannels steer narrative development. Journal of Pragmatics, 70, 152–164. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.06.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tolins, J., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2016). Overhearers use addressee backchannels in dialog comprehension. Cognitive Science, 40, 1412–1434. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12278
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tomasello, R., Grisoni, L., Boux, I., Sammerler, D., & Pulvermuller, F. (2022). Instantaneous Neural Processing of Communicative Functions Conveyed by Speech Prosody. Cerebral Cortex, 5(16). DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhab522
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tooley, K. M. (2022). Structural priming during comprehension: A pattern from many pieces. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-022-02209-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Tsuboi, N., Francis, W. W., & Jameson, J. T. (2021). How word comprehension exposures facilitate later spoken production: implications for lexical processing and repetition priming. Memory, 29(1), 39–58. DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2020.1845740
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Verga, L., & Kotz, S. A. (2019). Putting language back into ecological communication contexts. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34(4), 536–544. DOI: 10.1080/23273798.2018.1506886
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wehbe, L., Blank, IA, Shain, C., Futrell, R, Levy, R., von der Malsburg, T., Smith, N., Gibson, E., & Fedorenko, E. (2021). Incremental Language Comprehension Difficulty Predicts Activity in the Language Network but Not the Multiple Demand Network. Cerebral Cortex, 31(9), 4006–4023. DOI: 10.1093/cercor/bhab065
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article