Question: In "some characteristic C is what distinguishes A from B", does characteristic C belongs to A but not to B, or to B but not to A?

For example:

> 
> Imposing restrictions on the available resources is what distinguishes computational complexity from computability theory.
> 
> 
>

Answer: 
**Edited Answer, see below.**

Every time I've studied conversations patterns and rules of speaking, the other person has always been called either **hearer** or **addressee**. Here I'll quote an example from my notes:

> 
> "Speakers and hearers constantly adjust their internal registry of deictics to keep up with the conversation."
> 
> 
> 

or

> 
> "Directives = Speech acts in which the words are aimed at making the hearer do something;"
> 
> 
> 

I'm not really sure about *listener*, but honestly I can't recall using it.

---

**EDIT:**

Since I've been downvoted, I'll link a further reference which proves me right. The book, [Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language](http://books.google.it/books?id=t3_WhfknvF0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=searle%20acts&hl=it&ei=fsbkTY_AGtDm-gbqg6jQBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-preview-link&resnum=1&ved=0CC4QuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=hearer&f=false), is written by John R. Searle, a rather known name in the Linguistics field and to whoever studied Linguistics in an academic setting.

**Speech Acts** are utterances that don't simply convey information, but can also "perform actions" such as "*I hereby declare you company and wife.*" (This one, for example, is a **Declaration** according to Searle's classification of Speech Acts.

If you search words in that book, there are **34 entries** for "hearer" and **0 entries** for "listener".
The answers given answer the title question of 'hearing equivalent for “speaker”'.

However, the question is actually asked in reference to analysing a **conversation**. In that case, 'speakers' isn't really correct either. Those who speak in a conversation also plays the same listening role as those who do not speak.

In the context of research, the groups would likely be labelled 'speaking participants' and 'non-speaking participants'. In a less formal context, you would talk about 'the people who spoke' and 'the people who didn't speak'.