---

SSJ do not note that this is directly related to Lévi-Strauss's discussion about models in social structure (1962 [1952] ). Strictly speaking, theirs is a paradigmatic example of such a model. Note the movement from the summarizing of well-documented observations to the building of the model highlighting major properties of the model with the goal to generate new observations.

To merit serious consideration, it seems to us, a model should be capable of accommodating (i.e. either be compatible with, or allow the derivation of) the following grossly apparent facts. In any conversation, we observe the following:

• (I) Speaker-change recurs, or at least occurs (cf. §4.1, below).
• (2) Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time (cf. §4.2).
• (3) Occurrences of more than one speaker at a time are common, but brief (cf. 14.3).
• (4) Transitions (from one lurn to a next) with no gap and no overlap are common. Together with transitions characterized by slight gap or slight overlap, they make up the vast majority of transitions (cf. §4.4).
• (5) Turn order is not fixed, but varies (cf. §4.5).
• (6) Turn size is not fixed, but varies (cf. §4.6).
• (7) Length of conversation is not specified in advance (cf. §4.7).
• (8) What parties say is not specified in advance (cf. §4.8).
• (9) Relative dimihulion of turns is not specified in advance (cf. §4.9).
• (10) Number of parties can vary (cf. §4.10).
• (11) Talk can be continuous or discontinuous (cf. §4.1l).
• (12) Turn.allocation techniques are obviously used. A current speaker may select a next speaker (as when he addresses a question to another party); or parties may self-select in starting to talk (cf. §4.1).
• (13) Various 'turn_constructional units' are employed; e.g., turns can be projectedly 'one word long', or they can be sentential in length (cf.§4.13).
• (14) Repair mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors and violations; e.g., if two parties find themselves talking at the same time, one of them will stop prematurely, thus repairing the trouble (cf. §4.l4)

A SIMPLEST SYSTEMATICS. The tum-taking system for conversation can be described in terms of two components and a set of rules, as follows.

• 3.1. THE TURN-CONSTRUCTIONAL COMPONENT.
• 3.2. TURN-ALLOCATION COMPONENT.
• 3.3. RULES. The following seems to be a basic set of rules governing turn construction, providing fOr the allocation of a next turn to one party, and coordinating transfer so as to minimize gap and overlap.
  • (1) For any turn, at the initial transition-relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit:
    • (a) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a 'current speaker selects next' technique, then the party so selected has the right and is obliged to take next turn to speak; no others have such rights or obligations, and transfer occurs at that place.
    • (b) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use or a 'current speaker selects next' technique, then self-selection for next speakership may, but need not, be instituted; first starter acquires rights to a turn, and transfer occurs at that place.
    • (c) If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a 'current speaker selects next' technique, then currenl speaker may, but need not continue, unless another self-selects.
  • (2) If, at the initial transition·relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit, neither la nor 1b bas operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current speaker has continued, then the rule set a-c re-applies at the next transition-relevance place, until transfer is effected.

This could easily be read in terms of Mauss's writing about gitf-giving, many forms of exchange theory, particularly as recast by Bourdieu's when he writes about honor practices (1990 [1980], 10ff)--though not when he moves from modeled "rules" to "sense" for the 'thinginess' of turn-taking, Christmas gift giving, or threats to one's honor is directly produced by all the activities that set up the field for the individual participants, including the reaction of other participants to whatever the individual did do (of 'sense').

more