1
Introduction
Doing two
things at once is a pervasive feature of social interaction. The availability
of more than one activity demands of participants some method for organizing
one with respect to another. Ongoing work in conversation analysis on
multiactivity has addressed the ways in which participants recognizably engage
in multiple concurrently relevant activities through the skillful usage of
verbal, vocal, bodily, and material resources (Goodwin, 1984; Mondada, 2011,
2014a; Haddington, Keisanen, Mondada, & Nevile, 2014). This article
contributes to research on multiactivity by taking up the matter of how
participants accountably engage in two activities that are largely mutually
exclusive: speaking and drinking. It offers an empirical analysis of moments
when both activities are relevant, specifically focusing on environments in
which a currently drinking participant is allocated a speaking turn. The
analysis shows some of the technical work involved in coordinating these
activities. It furthermore suggests that participants treat the modality of
their interactional contributions—language, prosody, gesticulation, gaze,
posture, head movement, instrumental manipulation, etc.—as an important feature
of action formation in multiactivity settings.
2
Multiactivity and drinking
Multiactivity
refers to “the social, interactional and temporal features of situations and
conduct in which people organise multiple activities together, concurrently or
serially” (Haddington et al., 2014, p. 5). Multiactivity settings are
characterized by the contemporaneous relevance of multiple involvements
(Goffman, 1963; Toerien & Kitzinger, 2007; Raymond & Lerner, 2014),
participation frameworks (Goodwin, 2000; Mondada, 2013), or courses of action,
which variably intersect, conflict, or run in parallel from one moment to the
next (Mondada, 2014a). Participants organize multiactivity settings by
determining how, when, and where to mobilize a given set of resources so as to
recognizably advance with a given set of activities. The methods with which
participants selectively advance one activity over another gives rise to
various hierarchical, temporal, and sequential relationships between activities
such as suspension, resumption, abandonment, postponement, and synchronization
(Mondada, 2014a; Raymond & Lerner, 2014). The allocation of multimodal
resources to particular
2
activities can be interpersonal, where multiple
participants collaboratively orchestrate their involvement in multiple joint
projects. This allocation may also be intrapersonal, as is done by single
participants distributing resources among multiple activities (Deppermann,
2014). This article articulates the intrapersonal coordination involved in
selectively advancing the joint activity of talk-in-interaction along with the
individual activity of drinking.
Coordinating
multiple activities requires a practical grasp of the organization of each
individual activity and how they may be integrated. The organization of
speaking in conversation has been documented by conversation analysts in over
half a century of work on turn-taking (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson,
1974), turn construction (Schegloff, 1996), and turn design (Drew, 2013). The
organization of drinking follows the organization of many other manual actions
in exhibiting a grossly tripartite structure: a preparation phase, focal action
phase, and return phase (Lerner & Raymond, 2008; see also Kendon, 1980; Sacks
& Schegloff, 2002). The preparation phase for a typical drinking action is
characterized by taking the vessel, conveying it to the mouth, and situating or
‘docking’ it there; the focal action phase is marked by tilting the vessel upward
and pouring liquid into the mouth; and the return phase is constituted by
reversing the tilt of the vessel, decoupling it from the mouth, and bringing it
and the body to some resting position. A formal organization of this sort
furnishes for participants a visible index of the trajectory of bodily action
against which other activities (such as speaking) may be coordinated and
furnishes for analysts a positionally grounded method for describing manual
action (Lerner & Raymond, 2008).
Several
aspects of drinking recommend it for an analysis of multiactivity. Most significantly,
drinking inhibits most forms of speaking. When liquid occupies the mouth, the
oral articulators are practically inoperable, and when swallowing, exhalation
is impossible. Participants must therefore out of physiological necessity
coordinate moments of speaking with moments of drinking. Despite this seeming mismatch,
however, the two commonly go together. Indeed, even when ‘going for drinks’
(coffee, beer, tea, etc.), the very drinks themselves are not ordinarily the
focus of the encounter. Rather, drinking tends to operate as an alibi for
interaction (Laurier, 2008) and may even scaffold particular forms of
sociability (Frake, 1964; Manning, 2012). Additionally drinking is relatively
unrestricted in its placement. With the exception of things like ritualized
drinking (Frake, 1963) and toasts (Manning, 2012), participants appear to drink
whenever they please. Its placement is not motivated by the actions of others
in any obvious way, so we may surmise that participants choose when and how to
drink.
[i]
Apart
from studies focusing on food-related talk (e.g., Wiggins, 2002; Mondada, 2009;
Pomerantz & Mandelbaum, 2016), relatively little attention has been paid to
the organization of talking, eating, and drinking. Goffman (1963) considered
eating and drinking to be forms of auto-involvements—types of momentary
withdrawal from interaction that, if over-indulged, carry the risk of
expressing disloyalty to the social occasion within which they occur. Though not
generally regarded as types of gesture, eating and drinking nevertheless have
the capacity to regulate social interaction (Kendon, 2004, p. 9). For example,
because they occur at the face, they are potentially of the class of actions
(along with face-touching) that are systematically disattended by
coparticipants (Goodwin, 1986). Previous work on the coordination of talk with
food and drink has shown how unaddressed participants modulate the act of
distributing food according to the structural organization of a storytelling
(Goodwin, 1984), how the completion of a drink can be coordinated with the
pre-closing section of a coffee break (Laurier, 2008), and how a drink can be
used in progressive disengagement from speakership (Walker, 2012). I build upon
these studies by restricting myself to an analysis of drinking in a particular
sequential environment in conversation.
The
analysis focuses on environments in which drinking and speakership are
simultaneously relevant. All cases involve a participant who is (a) in the
preparation or focal action phase of drinking, and (b) provided the opportunity
to speak next (see Sacks et al., 1974; Lerner, 2003; Hayashi, 2013). I further
restrict myself to cases in which the participant’s response occurs on time and
without delay.[ii] For such participants, there is a conflict
between drinking now and
speaking next. They are obligated to produce a next action and so must choose
between continuing drinking or discontinuing drinking. In what follows, I focus
on both of these choices. First, I show cases where drinking continues, and a
non-verbal response is produced. In these cases, both activities occur in
parallel, each proceeding without perturbation. Then, I show cases where
drinking is discontinued such that a response can be produced. In these cases,
the trajectory of drinking is adjusted for the production of a next action. In
the final section of the analysis, I argue that the decision to either continue
or discontinue drinking in this environment displays participants’ sensitivities
to the modalities or resources used to build actions.
The
data for this article are ten video-recordings (4.8 hours) of naturally
occurring interactions in US and UK English between friends, intimates,
classmates, and coworkers, all of whom provided informed consent. These recordings
capture scenes of hanging out, mealtimes, board games, and preparing documents.
All observable drinking actions were identified for an overall collection of
333 cases. From this collection, I identified instances in which a drinking
participant was allocated a next turn. The resulting 41 cases serve as the
basis for this paper, which proceeds according to conversation analytic methods
(e.g. Sidnell & Stivers, 2013; Hoey & Kendrick, in press). Transcription conventions follow Jefferson (2004) for
verbal/vocal conduct and Mondada (2014b) for visible conduct.
3
Analysis
3.1 Parallel progression of drinking and
speaking
Though
drinking and speaking present somewhat conflicting demands, participants may
nevertheless proceed with them in parallel. One way that this is done is
through vocalization (see also Wiggins, 2002; Gonzales-Temer & Ogden,
2015). In Extracts 1-2, a currently-drinking participant is provided the
opportunity to speak next, and in each case, that participant produces a vocal
response while drinking. In Extract 1, Marie positively receipts an answer in
third position with ↑mm (line 4), and in Extract 2, Jennifer responds to
a question with the negative answer token mm-mm (line 4).
Extract
1.
Extract
2.
While Marie
and Jennifer could conceivably have produced verbal responses only after
completing the focal action phase of drinking, that is not what happens.
Instead, they produce sequentially appropriate vocal responses on time with
minimal gap (Extract 1) or overlap (Extract 2). So, despite the constraint that
drinking places on verbalization, participants who are allocated the next turn
may still participate in a sequentially relevant way and in accordance with the
normative temporal demands of talk-in-interaction.
Another
way in which participants may accountably—that is, observably and recognizably
(Garfinkel, 1967)—participate in drinking and conversation simultaneously is
through the bodily resources, such as gaze, gesticulation, or, as shown next, an eyebrow flash. At the start of this
exchange, Jamie asks Max about the number of lines on a painting they have been
discussing. Over the course of his question, Jamie gazes from Max, briefly
toward Will, then back to Max (figure 1a-c). The import of Jamie’s slight head
movement is that he is asking on behalf of both himself and Will as a party.
Jamie’s head movement works to ‘include’ Will as invested in the question and
Max’s eventual answer.
Extract
3.
Figure 1. Eyebrow flash during drink-in-progress
Max’s answer
comes in two turn-constructional units (TCU; Sacks et al., 1974). During the
first (ish), Max turns to face Will, thereby treating Will as a
recipient to his answer (figure 1c-d; Goodwin, 1981). As Max continues with a
second TCU (it’s got…), Jamie also turns to gaze at Will (figure 1d-e).
With both Max and Jamie now turned to him, Will is in a position to produce
some reaction to Max’s answer (Stivers & Rossano, 2010). However,
throughout this entire exchange, Will is drinking and thus cannot speak. Given
the unavailability of speaking, Will gazes back and produces an eyebrow flash (figure
1e; cf. Goodwin, 1981; Levinson, 2015). With this, he treats his
coparticipants’ gaze toward him as requiring some reaction and produces a
non-verbal action that would be visible to both of them.
What
should be clear is that drinking does not totally inhibit participation in
interaction, nor does the management of two mutually exclusive activities necessitate
the suspension of one for the advancement of the other. Rather, the orderly
progression of both may be preserved. Participants upheld the orderly
progression of drinking simply maintaining engagement in the focal action phase
of drinking, and they upheld the advancement of talk-in-interaction through the
allocation of non-verbal resources. This contrast with the extracts shown next,
in which the trajectory of drinking is adjusted such that speaking can take
place.
3.2 Progression with adjustment
Rather than
proceeding with both drinking and conversation in parallel, participants may
make elementary adjustments (Lerner & Raymond, 2008; Raymond & Lerner,
2014) to the trajectory of drinking so as to support the progression of the
interaction. Such adjustments may include acceleration, retardation, or, as
shown below, retraction of a drinking action. Laura, Michelle, and Mom are
talking about darts, which Michelle and
Laura recently played. Their exchange starts with Laura explaining to her
Mom how points are calculated in the game. As her explanation proceeds,
Michelle launches her drinking action (figure 2a).
Extract 4.
Figure 2
During her
explanation, Laura projects a numeric value with if ya hit it in the outside
rim, ya get (lines 1-2). Before bringing her turn to completion, she cuts
it off and turns to Michelle (figure 2a-b). With this complex of behaviors, she
allows for conditional entry
onto the turn space—a place where Michelle may
provide some talk that advances Laura’s turn to completion (Lerner, 1996). Without
missing a beat, Michelle reverses the tilt of her glass (figure 2b-c). That is,
at the transition between the preparation and focal action phase of drinking,
she decouples the glass from her mouth and suspends it in ‘on deck’ position.
This frees her oral articulators and allows her to supply the number two
(lines 3-4), which completes the incidental word search sequence (Goodwin &
Goodwin, 1986; Schegloff, 2007). Having only partially suspended the drinking
trajectory, Michelle then resumes that action as Laura resumes her explanation
(lines 5-6).
Participants
may also accelerate the trajectory of drinking. In Extract 5, Matt mentions
that people on Twitter have been going mental in response to the event
they have been discussing. Rowan moves to stabilize this introduction of new
material by prompting Matt to expand (line 2). As Rowan issues his prompt,
however, Matt moves to exit the turn space. Matt recompletes his turn (Sacks et
al., 1974) with a temporal adverbial clause and turn-final so (see Raymond,
2004) while lifting his mug. It
is here that we observe both Rowan and Matt orient to Matt’s drinking action.
Extract
5.
Rowan pursues
expansion with an assertion about Matt (I bet youv-, line 4) but does so
just as Matt lifts his mug. In reaction to Matt’s incipient drinking action,
Rowan cuts off his turn, pauses, and gazes to Matt, which attracts Matt’s gaze
(Goodwin, 1979). He then revises his turn as a polar question (Drew, Walker,
& Ogden, 2013). Rowan’s turn cut-off, pause, and turn revision allow time
to elapse, and may be seen as ‘providing Matt time to finish drinking’. This is
supported by Rowan’s gaze behavior: In the silence after his question (line 5),
Rowan gazes at something in the distance, treating Matt’s response as not
urgently needed or not needed now. Matt, for his part as selected next
speaker, is seen working to end drinking and begin responding. Matt accelerates
the focal action phase of drinking by lowering his mug, forecasting the
beginning of a response. Both participants then treat a response as imminent:
Rowan returns his gaze to Matt, who is nodding while swallowing his drink,
which premonitors his positive verbal response in line 6.
Another
instance of acceleration appears in Extract 6. Here, however, the participant
adjusts her drinking action not to produce a turn-at-talk but to remove her
glasses from her face. Prior to this exchange, Betty had put on Teresa’s
glasses to try them on. The transcript starts with Jennifer prompting Betty to
expand on something she had said, and Betty resisting that expansion (lines
1-5). Betty does not take the opportunity to say more but instead visibly moves
to end the sequence by going for her drink (figure 4a). As she proceeds to
drink, their talk lapses into silence (see Hoey, 2015).
Extract
6.
Figure 4. Drinking accelerated to support removing glasses
Jennifer ends
the lapse by requesting the glasses that Betty is wearing (line 8) and
extending her hand out to receive them (figure 4b). In response, Betty
accelerates the focal action phase of drinking. She lunges forward slightly and
raises her left arm (figure 4c). With this conspicuous movement, Betty displays
that she is on her way to complying with Jennifer’s request. And indeed,
Jennifer treats her movement as such by retracting her hand from a receptive
formation (figure 4c-d). Drinking participants may thus adjust their drinking
actions to free up bodily resources for the production of a next action.
In
these extracts, the progression of talk-in-interaction was preserved via the
visible retraction or acceleration of the participants’ drinking actions. These
elementary adjustments allowed participants to produce on-time next actions and
thereby accountably participate in interaction. Compared to Extracts 1-3, in
which participants treated drinking as something that could be done in
simultaneity with the interaction, in Extracts 4-6 they treated drinking as an
impediment to recognizable participation. In the next section, I expand upon
these two orientations to the incompatibilities between drinking and speaking.
3.3 Modality sensitivity
Actions may be
constructed through (a combination of) different resources or modalities. To
give a simple example, greetings can be done by waving (gestural/manual
modality) or by saying hello (verbal/vocal modality). Though both
of these are greetings, they are not equivalent actions in terms of their
affordances. One difference is that waving can be seen at a distance, whereas
speaking typically has a more limited perceptual range. Participants might thus
wave when far away from one another and say hello when in closer
proximity. In choosing one or the other method of building up an action,
participants display sensitivity to what each modality affords.
As
the previous extracts show, the choice to either continue drinking or adjust
drinking after being selected to speak next affects the resources with which a
response can be built. Continuing with drinking means that, if a next action is
to be produced on time, participants must rely on nonverbal means for designing
a response (vocalization, eyebrow flash, etc.). And conversely, if drinking is
adjusted, then a greater range of actions may be produced using the resources
that were inaccessible during drinking (speaking, head nods, etc.). Both of these
choices appear in Extract 7, which involves the same participants as Extract 3. The three friends
have been discussing Max’s role in a theater production. Prior to this transcript,
Max motioned to end that topic and is seen at the beginning of this extract
lifting his drink—a visible indication of no more forthcoming talk (figure 5a).
Will, however, does not go along with Max’s motion to end the topic but asks
him a question about the play (line 1).
Extract
7.
Figure 5.
Will’s
question features a couple restarts, which work to elicit Max’s gaze (Goodwin,
1979; figure 5b). Near the end of Will’s question, Max suspends the lift of his
glass, keeping it nearly perched on his lower lip. By holding his glass in ‘on
deck’ position, Max is able to both display commitment to finishing his
drinking action and also produce nodding movement. As Max concludes his
nodding, he tilts his glass toward his lips, indicating incipient resumption of
his drink (line 3). However, Will asks Max another question (line 3). In
response to this second question, Max simultaneously lowers his glass to the tabletop
and produces a spoken response (lines 4-5, figure 5c-d). With this extract, we
observe two questions posed to a drinking participant and two distinct analyses
of what resources are required to adequately respond. Simply put, Max responds
to Will’s first question with a nod, for which he simply suspended his glass.
But for Will’s second question, Max responds with a spoken turn, for which he
lowered his glass to the table. And so in quick succession, Max’s bodily
behaviors reveal his understandings of what actions should come next and how
those actions may be built up.
We
can re-assess the actions we have seen so far with respect to the modality used
to construct these actions. In Extracts 1-3, a restricted set of resources was
treated as adequate under the circumstances. The ↑mm (Extract 1) suitably corresponds to a verbal
change-of-state token like oh (Heritage, 1984); the mm-mm (Extract
2) to a negative particle like no; and the eyebrow flash (Extract 3) to
a surprise token like really? (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2006). In contrast,
in Extracts 4-6, the participants evidently required a fuller set of resources
to compose a response, making drinking adjustments necessary to access those
resources. The numeral two (Extract 4), the nodding and a counter all
the time (Extract 5), and the removal of glasses (Extract 6) are not as
easily done when drinking—that is, the actions they implement are best composed
using a fuller set of multimodal resources.[iii]
Participants
thus exhibit sensitivity to the modalities used to construct their actions. In
selecting from among multimodal resources for constructing a response,
participants show a practical understanding of what different modalities
afford. This means that the calculus for next speakers is somewhat more complex
if they are currently drinking. In addition to the tasks of actively monitoring
the unfolding talk for places of possible completion (Sacks et al., 1974) and
simultaneously formulating an adequate response (e.g. Levinson, 2016),
participants who are engaged in drinking must take into account the optimal
response modality.
4
Discussion
Drinking was
shown to be an orderly affair, responsive to interactional contingencies such
as speaker selection. In
balancing current engagement in drinking with the social obligation to speak
next, participants were shown either proceeding with both in parallel or
adjusting the progression of drinking to engage in speaking. These two
orientations to resolving the practical incompatibility between speaking and
drinking reveal participants’ sensitivities to modality in action construction.
If a relevant next action
can be built using a restricted set of resources, then drinking may proceed as
it ordinarily would. But if the next action is more adequately expressed
through words or otherwise requires a fuller set of resources, then elementary
adjustments of the drinking action are in order.
This
account contributes to our understanding of multiactivity by (1) focusing specifically
on drinking, which has not been the focus of previous work despite being a
widespread accompaniment to conversation; (2) explicating part the
interactional work that goes into rendering drinking a seen-but-unnoticed
feature of everyday multiactivity settings; (3) analyzing a sequential environment
in which two activities are specifically incompatible; (4) specifying the
intrapersonal coordination of one joint activity (conversation) with one individual
activity (drinking); and (5) implicating modality sensitivity as a part of
action formation in multiactivity settings.
The
notion that participants are sensitive to the affordances of different
resources and modalities can enrich our understanding of action formation and
sequential implicature. Modality sensitivity captures the basic idea that the
different ways of forming the ‘same’ action are interactionally consequential.
Because actions can be assembled in various ways, participants must take stock
of the availability and utility of multimodal resources for building just this
action at just this time. For example, a greeting constructed through the
verbal/vocal modality shows the speaker’s orientation to matters such as hearability.
The resources used to build a given action might also bear consequences for the
range of possible next actions. For instance, we can speculate that a spoken
greeting implicates a slightly different response as compared to a
manual/gestural greeting. This suggestion parallels the argument that
language-specific resources for implementing the ‘same’ action bear collateral
effects on how an action is understood and what it implicates (Sidnell &
Enfield, 2012). Similarly, it is conceivable that particular configurations of
multimodal resources used for an action subsequently afford particular next
actions.
This
article shows the
practical work undertaken to interweave
the individual manual activity of drinking into the collaborative joint
activity of conversation.
By contextualizing the act of drinking in its socio-interactional particulars,
it offers an empirical specification of a widespread “technique of the body”
(Mauss, 1979). And by
isolating an environment in which participants must work to make the speaking
modality available, it illustrates participants’ situated understandings of the
practical utility of language for social action (see Rossi, 2014; Stevanovic
& Monzoni, 2016).
Acknowledgments
This paper was
presented in 2016 at the Conference of the International Society for Gesture
Studies in Paris and in 2017 at the Taal en Sociale Interactie Groep at
University of Groningen. I am grateful for the feedback I received at those
meetings. I also thank Kobin Kendrick and two anonymous reviewers for their
comments on this paper.
References
Frake, C.O.
(1964). How to ask for a drink in Subanun. American Anthropologist, 66(6,2), 127-132.
Garfinkel, H.
(1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood: Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E.
(1963). Behavior in public places. New York: The Free Press.
Gonzalez
Temer, V., & Ogden, R. (2015). A multi-modal analysis of the mm token in Chilean Spanish interaction. Talk presented at
the 14th Conference of the International Pragmatics Association.
Antwerp, Belgium, 24-27 June 2015.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational
organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story
structure and the organization of participation. In J. Heritage &
J.M. Atkinson (Eds.) Structures of social action: Studies in conversation
analysis (pp. 225-246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture as a resource
for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62(1-2), 29-49.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and
embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489–1522.
Goodwin, M.H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching
for a word. Semiotica, 62(1/2), 51–75.
Goodwin, M.H., & Goodwin, C.
(2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, 191(1/4), 257-286.
Haddington,
P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2014). Multiactivity
in social interaction: Beyond multitasking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Heath,
C. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage,
J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.)
Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hoey, E.M. (2015). Lapses: How people
arrive at, and deal with, discontinuities in talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction , 48(4), 430-453.
Hoey, E.M. & Kendrick, K.H. (in press). Conversation analysis. In A.M.B. de Groot & P. Hagoort (Eds.)
Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide. Wiley-Blackwell.
Keevallik, L. (2015). Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In A. Deppermann S.
Günthner (Eds.) Temporality in interaction (pp. 309–336). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Kendon, A. (1980). Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance.
In M.R. Key (Ed.), the relation between verbal and nonverbal communication(pp. 207-227). The Hague: Mouton.
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kita, S., Gijn, I.V., & Hulst, H.V.D. (1998). Movement
phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by
human coders. In Gesture and Sign Language in Human-Computer
Interaction: International Gesture Workshop, Bielefeld, Germany, September
1997. Proceedings (p. 23). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Laurier, E. (2008).Drinking up endings: Conversational
resources of the cafe. Language & Communication, 28(2), 165-181.
Lerner, G.H. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a
context-free organization. Language in Society, 32, 177-201.
Lerner, G.H., & Raymond, G. (2008). Body trouble: Some sources of interactional trouble and
their embodied solution. Unpublished manuscript, University of California,
Santa Barbara.
Levinson, S.C. (2015). Other-initiated
repair in Yélî Dnye: Seeing eye-to-eye in the language of
Rossel Island. Open Linguistics, 1, 386-410.
Manning, P. (2012). Semiotics
of drink and drinking. London: Bloomsbury.
Mauss, M. (1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 2(1), 70-88.
Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking pointing and the emergence of
possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194-225.
Mondada, L. (2009). The methodical organization of talking and eating: Assessments in
dinner conversations. Food Quality and Preference , 20(8), 558-571.
Mondada, L. (2011). The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical
demonstrations. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.) Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world
(pp. 207-226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mondada, L. (2013). Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. In P. Auer, M.
Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock, & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.) Space in language and linguistics (pp. 247–275). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Mondada, L. (2014a). The temporal orders of multiactivity: Operating and demonstrating
in the surgical theatre. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.) Multiactivity in social interaction:
Beyond Multitasking (pp. 33-76). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Mondada, L. (2014b). Conventions for multimodal transcription. Accessed 01-03-2016.
https://franz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/franz/user_upload/redaktion/Mondada_conv_multimodality.pdf
Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.). (2014). Interacting with
objects. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Nishizaka, A., & Sunaga, M. (2015).
Conversing while massaging: Multidimensional asymmetries of
multiple activities in interaction. Research on Language and Social
Interaction, 48(2), 200-229.
Pomerantz, A.M., & Mandelbaum, J. (2016). Advocating healthy eating through interpersonal
interaction. Talk presented at the 102nd convention of the National
Communications Association. 10-13 November 2016. Philadelphia, USA.
Raymond, G., & Lerner, G.H. (2014). A body and its involvements. In P. Haddington, T.
Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.)Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 227-246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rossi, G. (2014). When do people not use language to make requests. In P. Drew & E.
Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.) Requesting in social
interaction(pp. 303-334). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E.A. (2002 [1971]). Home position. Gesture, 2(2), 133-146.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974).
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696-735.
Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds). (2013).
The handbook of conversation analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Stevanovic, M., & Monzoni, C. (2016).
On the hierarchy of interactional resources: Embodied and verbal behavior in the management of joint
activities with material objects. Journal of Pragmatics, 103, 15-32.
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J. D. (2006).
A preference for progressivity ininteraction. Language in Society, 35(3), 367-392.
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F. (2010).Mobilizing response.
Research on language and social interaction, 43(1), 3-31.
Toerien, M., & Kitzinger, C. (2007).
Emotional labour in action: Navigating multiple involvements in the beauty salon. Sociology, 41(4), 645-662.
Walker, G., (2012). Coordination and interpretation of vocal and visible resources: ‘Trail off’ conjunctions. Language
and speech, 55(1), 141-163.
Wiggins, S., (2002). Talking with your mouth
full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 311-336.
Wilkinson, S., & Kitzinger, C. (2006).
Surprise as an interactional achievement: Reaction tokens in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly 69(2), 150-182.
