Additionally, this chapter presents research of silence with review of main aspects of papers in the field of conversational analysis, ethnography of communication and metaphor of silence, as well as types of interventions, reasons for silence, level of realisation of silence, conventions related to silence, communicational relevance of silence and classification of silence based on function and type of turn. Chapter 4. presents theoretical background of dealing with silence in this paper, based on conversational analysis, ethnography of communication and metaphoric concept of silence. This paper will test whether there is a possibility to make a systematic research of silence in relation to turn, i.e. the uttered, and in relation to the speaker. Systematic quality related to turns and adjacency pairs to whom silence belongs, and in relation to the speaker, can facilitate the understanding of silence. Turn-based analysis is founded on conversational analysis, while the analysis based on speaker, event of speaking and situation is founded on ethnography of communication. The assumption is that the language manifests a way the speakers conceptualise words and meaning behind them. The understanding of silence is seen through metaphoric concepts related to silence. Is silence a pause or an interruption of communication, as metaphor says, or the silence is someone who rules, and therefore has a communicational message, because it communicates domination. Communicational relevance of silence is based on metaphor, while expressions about silence can be used to check its communicational relevance. Conversational analysis studies distribution of turns, while ethnography of communication emphasises the importance of participant in conversation, when it comes to distribution of turns, their relations and conversational event and situation in which the participants in conversation met. Conceptual metaphor can bring the type of silence in relation to its interpretation, which is based on the existing metaphoric concepts on silence in German. Turns are the smallest units of conversation of a speaker and they are marked with description of their function and meaning in this paper. Turns form adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs are larger units of conversation, which can be made of one or more turns by one or more speakers. It is usually two speakers who participate in an adjacency pair; one with the act of turn opening (initiation turn) and the other with the act of reacting to initiation turn (turn of reaction), followed by the act of reacting to reaction (turn of reaction to reaction). Adjacency pairs are joined in higher conversational units, connected by topic – adjacency pairs with the same topic. The precondition to group a series of adjacency pairs is a joint topic. The group of adjacency pairs have their start, middle and end. Information on speakers is entered for the purpose of ethnographic analysis of adjacency pairs; age, gender and type of situation of the speakers, as well as the speaking event in which they participate. Four hypotheses have been presented for the research. H1: It is assumed that there is a communicatively relevant type of silence, which can have a function of an act of speaking. H2: There is also a type of silence which is communicatively irrelevant and without the function of an act of speaking. H3: It is assumed that differentiation of these types of silence is possible based on definition of the silence’s function, explored using the conversational analysis, ethnography of communication and conceptual metaphor. H4: When talking about the function of silence, it is assumed that the function is related to metaphoric concepts of silence where both, function of occurrence of silence in speech and meaning of silence in language presented by metaphoric concept, indicate interpretation of face threatening, with a precondition that they are communicatively relevant and have the function of a speech act. Chapter 6 presents the research corpora, materials and interviewees. It shows the project Research and Teaching Corpora of Spoken German, FOLK, method of collection and form of conversations collected within the corpora. It also shows the corpora of conversions selected for the research in this paper. It contains four interviews. The interviews contain 2,595 rows with occurrence of silence, including silence as a stillness, silence as a concealing and pause. Chapter 7 presents the model of research on silence in this paper, including questions and elements of the analysis. It shows the fundamental questions related to persons and situation, duration of silence and context. The presented model should be applicable to silence during interaction. It also shows the question of communicational relevance of silence and method of analysing conversations. A specific review was made on the absent parts in the adjacency pairs, where silence is defined as a concealing. Chapter 7.2. presents the elements of analysis and method of marking the material, dividing the conversations into rows marked in Excel. Each row is marked with the following information: who speaks, what they speak, what is the topic of conversation, what is the conversational situation. A row can contain a part of a turn or a whole turn. Grouping of turns to adjacency pairs and groups of adjacency pairs sharing the same topic is presented; they will be brought in connection with silence in conversation. Parts of group of adjacency pairs are listed: start, middle and end. The form of conversation and analysis of row containing the presented information is given. Examples in the chapter are presented and verified. Chapter 8 provides analysis of conversations. Chapter 8.1. gives analysis of a conversation around a meal, as the first private conversation. The flow of conversation is presented, number of rows in conversation, conversational situation and location where it is ongoing. Additionally, it presents conversational events making this conversation and location where this conversational event starts and finishes. The conversation is made of conversational events including meal preparation, eating and end of the meal. Each conversational event shows individual turns. Participants in conversation are presented, marked by abbreviations. They are anonymous, but the basic information is known; age, gender and occupation. The following chapter presents silence in turn of one participant in conversation which is defined as a pause within a turn in one sentence, and as a pause within a turn between two parts of a sentence. Each conversation is accompanied by conversational event, flow of turns, row in focus, occurrence of silence and explanation. Chapter 8.1.4. presents silence between two turns of one speaker during a private conversation over a meal. Silence between two turns of one speaker is interpreted as a concealing the existing turn in case that the second turn expressed reaction to the unspoken statement. Such silence as a concealing is defined as concealing a plea or request for an explanation, specification, additional explanation of a part of previous turn, repetition due to unclear speech, lack of reaction, request to formulate a claim, request for explanation and repetition of explanation, request to amend a claim, rephrasing questions from a w-question into yes/no question, request for an additional question, request to rephrase an answer, as an explicit interpretation of silence, non-verbal response. Silence between two adjacency pairs occurs as a disapproval of topic and as silence followed by opening of a new topic, after the previous sequential topic was concluded. Silence between two turns of two speakers is interpreted as a pause within adjacency pairs such as question - reaction to question, claim - reaction to claim, adjacency pair at the start of meal, question - reaction to question in the middle and at the end of sequential lot, claim - reaction to claim in the middle and end of sequential lot. Conversation during a travel was presented in Chapter 8.2. Part 8.2.1. presents flow of conversation, along with the number of rows, conversational situation, conversational event and participants in conversation. Silence within a turn of one participant in conversation is presented by examples of silence being interpreted as a pause within a turn in a sentence and pause within a turn between two sentences. As an example of silence between two turns of one participant in conversation, we see silence as a concealing containing a request for additional information, explanation, repetition due to possible incomprehensible speech, corrected claim and explanation, development of a question, explanation, rephrased claim during a tale, widening and convincing, explanation, non-verbal response and lack of response and lack of reaction. Silence between two adjacency pairs is presented as stillness. Silence between two turns of two participants in conversation is shown as a pause in exchange of turns in an adjacency pair such as question - reaction to question in the middle and at the end of sequential lot, claim - reaction to claim in the middle and at the end of sequential lot, and claim and reaction to claim at the end of sequential lot with a duration of nine seconds. The next presented conversation is an institutional conversation transcribed into 1102 rows. The conversational event is an introduction into an exam with turns related to that part of the conversation. The conversational event is presented as a start of an exam, with turns related to this part of the conversation. The conversational event is presented with accompanying turns. Participants in conversation are presented. Silence within a turn of one participant in conversation is presented in Chapter 8.3.3. The silence is interpreted as a pause within a turn in a sentence, as a pause within a turn in a sentence with a prop-word and a pause within a turn in a sentence with correction, repetition and interpretation. Silence between two turns of one participant in conversation is presented in Chapter 8.3.4. The silence is interpreted as silence as a concealing containing a request for explanation, specification, correction, provision of additional information, denial or change of claim, more information, non-verbal response, lack of response and interpretation of own silence. Silence between two turns of a participant in conversation is presented in the next chapter. Silence had a role as division, as a part of adjacency pair, conclusion - reaction to conclusion, question - reaction to question, reaction to question - stimulus to verbalisation. The fourth analysed conversation was the analysis of Process by Franz Kafka. Chapter 8.4. treats a conversation during a school class. Conversational event and situation of the turn accompanying a conversational event around reading analysis is presented. Participants in conversation are presented. Starting from Chapter 8.4.3., individual established examples from the corpora are presented; pause within a turn in a sentence, pause between division and start of a turn, pause within a turn with animation of participant in conversation to verbalise, pause within a turn between two parts of a sentence, explicit interpretation of silence and amendment of proposals with a corrected proposal. Chapter 8.4.4. presents silence between two turns of one participant in conversation and within it the silence as concealing containing a request for explanation, further telling, repetition of a part of reaction to claim, amended claim, additional response, response, offering response, specification, giving further instruction for the reaction to question, rephrasing, specification and rephrasing of a w-question. Silence between sequential lots is presented in the next chapter, followed by silence between two turns of two participants in conversation, and at claiming and reacting to a claim. Chapter 9.1 provides results. Silence within a turn is interpreted, as well as the causes for its occurrence. It provides a review of the topic of individual, private conversations and comparison of results. In relation to the pause, justification to use a group of methods proposed in Hypothesis IV is verified. Use of such pauses by a concept of face-saving is interpreted. Communicational relevance is stated as a foundation to affirm face threatening. Hypothesis on communicational relevance and hypothesis on face-saving are brought in relation. Other reasons for occurrence of this pause in the said conversations are also listed. One of them is the complexity of the topic. This chapter goes on to interpret silence within a turn for the analysed institutional conversations. Pause within a sentence in Conversation III (the first institutional conversation, at the exam) is brought in relation to speaker’s dominance. In Conversation III, participants in conversation are divided into the roles of interviewer and interviewees. Pauses are noted with interviewees. For such pauses, we note the occurrence of explicit interpretation of a pause. After starting own turn, and if there is need for a certain period of time to think, the participant in conversation uses a pause. Participants in conversation explicitly state this in appropriate situations. Topic and role of interlocutor as a part of criteria coming from ethnography of communication, verify justification to introduce ethnography of communication, based on Hypothesis III. A case of interviewer’s pause was noted, which can be brought in relation with face-saving of participant in conversation or the style of speaking. In both cases, the pauses are communicatively relevant. The conversation IV is presented in the same manner, as well as the other analysed institutional conversations. Conversation IV also shows distribution to a dominant participant in conversation and less dominant speakers, due to their roles during the conversation and the result of the conversation based on their participation. Domination of participants in conversation in relation to making a pause is related to face-saving. It is stated that both types of conversation, institutional and private, are equally related to face-saving. Hypothesis on communicational relevance, face-saving and the need for a group of methods for conversational analysis, ethnography of communication and metaphor concept is affirmed. There is presentation of reactions occurring after silence as a concealing in individual conversations, and a case of absence of any reaction from either side is given. Results for the first institutional conversation is given along with ways the conversation continues after silence as a concealing occurred, as well as hypothesis which can be affirmed in relation to the results. The results for the second institutional conversation and methods of continuing conversation are presented. Hypothesis that can be affirmed in relation to the results are given. The average duration of silence is presented. Chapter 9.4. presents the results of silence between two turns of two speakers in the first analysed conversation. The results are given for the first analysed conversation, along with the causes for occurrence of such pause. Chapter 9.4. presents the results of the analysis of silence between two turns of two speakers in the second analysed conversation. The results are given for the first analysed conversation, along with the causes for occurrence of such pause. The results of silence between two turns of two speakers in the third analysed conversation are presented. The results are given for the first analysed conversation, along with the causes for occurrence of such pause. The results of silence between two turns of two speakers in the fourth analysed conversation are presented. The results are given for the first analysed conversation, along with the causes for occurrence of such pause. Chapter 9.5. describes the silence between the group of adjacency pairs. Occurrence of this type of silence is brought in connection with phases in a group of adjacency pairs. The duration of silence is presented. This type of silence is brought into relation with individual conversations and hypotheses. Chapter 10 summarises the results. It gives an overview of usefulness of categorising silence into pause, silence as a concealing and silence as a stillness for the purpose of ability to compare results and to repeat the research based on qualitative and quantitative approaches. It interprets categorisation as a breakthrough in interpretation of silence and bringing its meaning closer to the speaker and those learning German. It discusses maintaining communication as a fundamental principle of participants in conversation participating in the analysed conversations. Types of reparation after the occurrence of silence are discussed. The chapterlooks back on hypotheses from the researched papers. Among the said hypotheses, prominent are those on expressing relations, evocative silence, silence as strategy, collision of norms and differences in silence formats. Hypotheses are brought into relation with Schwitalla’s hypotheses, and the results are connected with Bergmann’s results in silence research. The hypotheses on communicational relevance of silence, usefulness of the group of methods proposed in paper and face-saving are affirmed. Finally, the chapter lists contributions of the research and its possible applications. The research is relevant for understanding of own speaking and impact of it on the flow of conversation, understanding the participant in conversation, successfulness in maintaining conversation, understanding silence in the German Language, understanding the use of silence in communication in the German Language, intercultural communication and understanding of intercultural communication, awareness on features of own language, foreign language and different understanding of seemingly equal language elements. The research might be of a special importance for all those to whom German is not a native language. Based on a pause, we can identify the relationship of participants in conversation (who will be the participant in conversation to always start a new topic after a pause), sensitivity of topic and we can establish whether this is an institutional or extrainstitutional conversation. It is only in a private framework, for topics that are not sensitive, that the pause stops being communicatively relevant. Based on the occurrence of silence, we can assume relationships and understanding the unsaid, which can be the purpose to study silence, in addition to desire to integrate it as an equal member of communication, along with speech. The results of this paper are beneficial for conversational analysis and language research, interpersonal understanding between the speakers from one or more language areas, and creation of awareness of own conversational habits. The silence should have a more important place in language analysis. Interdisciplinary approach and analysis outside the linguistic framework have been seen as a justified choice for the analysis of (not only) this linguistic phenomena, and it is expected for the research to continue including social sciences related to linguistics, but also that the linguistics will give its contribution to social sciences. It creates the possibility to introduce silence in understanding of the uttered, and better understanding of language cultures hosting silence. The question as to the level of awareness of speakers about the silence within a speech remains and more attention could be paid to it in future research. It is expected that this paper will provide better understanding between members of different language cultures along with research to take place based on the same categories. Researching silence with the use of categories from this paper provides comparability and therefore possibility for insight into a different language culture. The paper gave a possibility to investigate communicational relevance based on meaning and distribution, and therefore it provided the basis to establish communicational relevance, as a method for explicit interpretation of silence. The categories of silence (pause, silence as a stillness and silence as a concealing) are applied in different types of private and institutional conversations, as well as in qualitative and quantitative analyses. Comparability of results from private and institutional conversations, during qualitative and quantitative analyses, as well as the possibility of application, present important advantages of this type of categorisation. By using the categories of pause, silence as a stillness and silence as a concealing provides for analysis of conversations in German and other language areas, and comparative analysis can provide a new insight into silence in other languages. The question of silence is actualised by its occurrence in society. Categorisation of silence brings at least a part of its character closer to the speaker, and therefore categorisation presents a breakthrough in its interpretation. Types of silence and relation to the conversational situation and role of participants in conversation are determined and isolated. The method how to isolate such types of silence is established.