Remain in Sight
Displaying Availability as a Bystander Salesperson to (Re-) initiate Talk with Customers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v9i1.159773Keywords:
remaining, multimodal conversation analysis, interactional space, availabilityAbstract
This study investigates how salespeople in Japanese bedding retail stores establish interactional space as a resource for (re-)initiating sales talk. Drawing on multimodal conversation analysis of video-recorded service encounters, the paper documents the practice of remaining: salespeople staying at the spot where an initial sales pitch has been made—even when the attempt fails. Remaining displays their availability as bystander participants by configuring an object-focused interactional space. The analysis shows that salespeople (1) time their approach when customers engage in object-focused activities, (2) remain in the area of a failed pitch, (3) adjust their bodily orientation to stand just outside customer focus, and (4) display availability by standing and doing nothing. These practices demonstrate that remaining is not passive, but a socio-spatial accomplishment that supports subsequent sales interaction. The findings contribute to conversation analytic research on service encounters by explicating how “roaming” salespeople enact organizational goals through embodied practices.
References
Balantani, A., & González-Martínez, E. (2025). “Calling-out” and “halting” summonses: Drawing the attention of a coworker on the move. Language & Communication, 104, 179-196.
Broth, M., & Lundström, F. (2014). A walk on the pier: Establishing relevant places in mobile instruction. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile. (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp.91-122). Walter de Gruyter & Co.
Clark, C., & Pinch, T. (2010). Some major organisational consequences of some ‘minor’, organised conduct: evidence from video analysis of pre-verbal service encounters. In N. Llewellyn & J. Hindmarsh. (Eds.), Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis (pp.140-171). Cambridge University Press.
D’Antoni, F., Debois, T., De Stefani, E., Hänggi, P., Mondada, L., Schneerson, J., & Tekin, B. S. (2022). Encounters in public places: The establishment of interactional space in face-to-face openings. In A. H. Jucke & H. Hausendorf (Eds.), Pragmatics of space (pp.281-315). Mouton De Gruyter.
De Stefani, E. (2014). Establishing joint orientation towards commercial objects in a self-service store: How practices of categorisation matter. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington & T. Heinemann (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 271-294). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
De Stefani, E., & Mondada, L. (2014). Reorganizing mobile formations: When “guided” participants initiate reorientations in guided tours. Space and Culture, 17(2), 157-175.
De Stefani, E., & Mondada, L. (2018). Encounters in public space: How acquainted versus unacquainted persons establish social and spatial arrangements. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 248-270.
Garfinkel, H., & Bittner, E. (1967). “Good” organizational reasons for “bad” clinic records. In Garfinkel, H. Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp.186-207). Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction, Bobbs-Merrill.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings, Free Press.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York Basic.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
Harjunpää, K., Mondada, L., & Svinhufvud, K. (2018). The coordinated entry into service encounters in food shops: Managing interactional space, availability, and service during openings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 271-291.
Heath, C. (1982). The display of recipiency: An instance of a sequential relationship in speech and body movement. Semiotica, 42(2–4), 147–168.
Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C., Benford, S., & Greenhalgh, C. (2000). Object-focused interaction in collaborative virtual environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(4), 477-509.
Hiramoto, T., & Hayashi, M. (2022). “How about Eggs?”: Action Ascription in the Family Decision-Making Process While Grocery Shopping at a Supermarket, In A. Deppermann & M. Haugh. (Eds.), Action ascription in social interaction (pp.208-233). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Hochuli, K. (2019). Turning the passer-by into a customer: Multi-party encounters at a market stall. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 52(4), 427-447.
Hoey, E. M. (2023). Ambulatory openings. In P. Haddington, T. Eilittä, A. Kamunen, L. Kohonen-Aho, I. Rautiainen and A. Vatanen (Eds), Complexity of interaction: Studies in multimodal conversation analysis (pp. 389-421). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
Jakonen, T. (2020). Professional embodiment: Walking, re-engagement of desk interactions, and provision of instruction during classroom rounds. Applied Linguistics, 41(2), 161-184.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13-31). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. CUP Archive.
Lebaron, C. D., & Streeck, J. (1997). Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20(1), 1-25.
McCabe, D. B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2003). The effect of examining actual products or product descriptions on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(4), 431-439.
McNeill, D. (2006). Gesture, gaze, and ground. In S. Renals & S. Bengio. (Eds.), Machine learning for multimodal interaction. MLMI 2005. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3869. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977-1997.
Mondada, L. (2011). The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Social Semiotics, 21(2), 289-316.
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: Geographical, interactional and cognitive perspectives (pp.247-275). Walter de Gruyter.
Mondada, L. (2017). Walking and talking together: Questions/answers and mobile participation in guided visits. Social Science Information, 56(2), 220-253.
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106.
Mondada, L. (2022). Appealing to the senses: Approaching, sensing, and interacting at the market’s stall. Discourse & Communication, 16(2), 160-199.
Mondada, L. (2024). Interactional space. In A. Gubina, E. M. Hoey & C. W. Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA).
Mondada, L. (2025). The normative order of sensing: enacting the tasting sheet in tasting training sessions. Text & Talk, 45(1), 79-113.
Mortensen, K., & Hazel, S. (2014). Moving into interaction: Embodied practices for initiating interactions at a help desk counter. Journal of Pragmatics, 62, 46–67.
Pillet-Shore, D. (2018). How to begin. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 213-231.
Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535-596.
Stukenbrock, A. (2020). Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactional achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1779.
Svinhufvud, K. (2018). Waiting for the customer: Multimodal analysis of waiting in service encounters. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 48-75.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
