Cover not available
Article published In:
Writing in interaction
Edited by Lorenza Mondada
[Language and Dialogue 6:1] 2016
► pp. 110–139

The interactional history of examples and parentheses

Note-taking practices in multiparty interaction among attendees of a mutual-help group for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) sufferers

| KU Leuven
In this article, we set out to examine how participants organize their note-taking while engaged in multiparty interaction. We first describe the collective display of affiliation as an interactional practice that allows note-takers to identify recordables and to legitimize their writing. We then focus on the use of examples (e.g.) and parentheses in the written notes. While style guides recommend the use of examples and parentheses to indicate subsidiary information, we describe the interactional history that leads to such scriptorial practices in collaborative writing. The analyses show that both examples and parentheses may originate from various interactional practices (e.g. listing, instruction, epistemic disputes) and that they may relate to highly salient topics of the interaction. We use the methods developed in conversation analysis, which we extend to the analysis of multimodal phenomena of interaction.
Keywords: parentheses, affiliation, multiparty interaction, note-taking, examples, conversation analysis, mutual-help groups, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Published online: 19 May 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.04des
References (50)
Arminen, Ilkka. 1998. Therapeutic Interaction: A Study of Mutual Help in the Meetings of Alcoholic Anonymous. Helsinki: Finnish Foundation for Alcoholic Studies.Google Scholar
Bülow, Pia H. 2004. “Sharing Experiences of Contested Illness by Storytelling.” Discourse & Society 15 (1): 33–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cislaru, Georgeta (ed). 2015. Writing(s) at the Crossroads. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Edward F. Schaefer. 1989. “Contributing to Discourse.” Cognitive Science 131: 259–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Gaulmyn, Marie-Madeleine, Robert Bouchard, and Alan Rabatel (eds). 2001. Le processus rédactionnel. Écrire à plusieurs voix. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher. 2008. “Topical and Sequential Backlinking in a French Radio Phone-in Program. Turn Shapes and Sequential Placements.” Pragmatics 18 (3): 381–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Paul Sambre. Submitted. “De la définition aux pratiques définitoires: l’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide”, Langages.
Egbert, Maria. 1993. Schisming: The Transformation from a Single Conversation to Multiple Conversations. PhD Thesis. University of California: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Fukuda, Keiji, et al. 1994. The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Comprehensive Approach to its Definition and Study.” Annals of Internal Medicine 1211: 953–959. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1987. “Forgetfulness as an Interactional Resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (29): 115–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grue, Jan. 2014a. “A Garden of Forking Paths: A Discourse Perspective on ‘Myalgic Encephalomyelitis’ and ‘Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’.” Critical Discourse Studies 11 (1): 35–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. “Technically Disabled, Ill for all Practical Purposes? Myalgic Encephalopathy/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Discourse in Norway.” Disability & Society 29 (2): 213–223. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guise, Jennifer, Chris McVittie, and Andy McKinlay. 2010. “A Discourse Analytic Study of ME/CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) Sufferers’ Experiences of Interactions with Doctors.” Journal of Health Psychology 15 (3): 426–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guise, Jennifer, Sue Widdicombe, and Andy McKinlay. 2007. “‘What is it Like to Have ME?’: The Discursive Construction of ME in Computer-mediated Communication and Face-to-face Interaction.” Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 11 (1): 87–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Boden. 2013. “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly 681: 15–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horton-Salway, Mary. 2001. “Narrative Identities and the Management of Personal Accountability in Talk about ME: A Discursive Psychology Approach.” Journal of Health Psychology 6 (2): 247–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Bio-psycho-social Reasoning in GP’s Case Narratives: The Discursive Construction of ME Patients’ Identities.” Health. An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine 6 (4): 401–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobs, Eva-Maria, and Daniel Perrin (eds). 2014. Handbook of Writing and Text Production. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolf Peter, and Marthe Grund, M. 1997. “Die Geschichte der Auslassungspunkte: Zu Entstehung, Form und Funktion der deutschen Interpunktion.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 251: 24–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knauth, Bettina, and Stephan Wolff. 1991. “Zur Fruchtbarkeit der Konversationsanalyse für die Untersuchung schriftlicher Texte.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie 20 (1): 36–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Komter, Martha L. 2006. “From Talk to Text: The Interactional Construction of a Police Record.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (3): 201–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 1991. “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society 201: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindström, Anna, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2013. “Affiliation in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 350–369. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lund, Kristine, Gregory Dyke, and Jean-Jacques Girardot. 2009. “Multimodal Reformulation during Shared Synchronous Note-taking and its Potential Pedagogical Consequences for Teachers and Students.” In Actes du colloque “Echanger pour apprendre en ligne”, Grenoble, 4-6 June 2009, ed. by Develotte, Christine, François Mangenot, and Elke Nissen. [URL] (accessed 28 October 2015).Google Scholar
Meehan, Albert J. 1986. “Record-keeping Practices in the Policing of Juveniles.” Urban Life 15 (1): 70–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. “The Interactional Production of Multiple Spatialities within a Participatory Democracy Meeting.” Social Semiotics 21 (2): 289–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “The Temporal Orders of Multiactivity: Operating and Demonstrating in the Surgical Theatre.” In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Haddington, Pentti, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 33–75. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulkay, Michael. 1986. “Conversations and Texts.” Human Studies 9 (2/3): 303–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissi, Riikka. 2015. “From Entry Proposals to a Joint Statement: Practices of Shared Text Production in Multiparty Meeting Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 791: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pétillon-Boucheron, Sabine. 2002. Les détours de la langue: Étude sur la parenthèse et le tiret double. Paris/Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Pitsch, Karola. 2007. “Koordinierung von parallelen Aktivitäten. Zum Anfertigen von Mitschriften im Schulunterricht.” In Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Reinhold Schmitt, 411–446. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Renkema, Jan. 2008. Schrijfwijzer. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Sachs, Lisbeth. 2001. “From a Lived Body to a Medicalized Body: Diagnostic Transformation and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Medical Anthropology 19 (4): 299–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” Language 501: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1982. “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and other Things that Come Between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Steensig, Jakob, and Paul Drew. 2008. “Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/Disaffiliation In interaction.” Discourse Studies 10 (1): 5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tayan, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig. 2011. “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Chicago Manual of Style. [URL] (accessed 30 October 2015).
The Oxford English Dictionary, [URL] (accessed 30 October 2015).
Tucker, Ian. 2004. “‘Stories’ of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: An Exploratory Discursive Psychological Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 11: 153–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tusting, Karin. 2010. “Eruptions and Interruptions: Managing Tensions between Writing and other Tasks in a Textualized Childcare Workplace.” In The Anthropology of Writing: Understanding Textually Mediated Worlds, ed. by David Barton, and Uta Papen, 67–98. Continuum: London.Google Scholar
Van Charldorp, Tessa C. 2014. “‘What Happened?’ From Talk to Text in Police Interrogations.” Language & Communication 361: 7–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dale. 2005. Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale.Google Scholar
Wojcik, Woitek, David Armstrong, and Richard Kanaan. 2011. “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Labels, Meanings and Consequences.” Journal of Psychosomatic Research 70 (6): 500–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Tomasine, Joseph S.
2024. Accomplishing feedback through inscription during reading assessment interaction. Linguistics and Education 80 ► pp. 101282 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Yeji & Jakub Mlynář
2023. “For Example” Formulations and the Interactional Work of Exemplification. Human Studies 46:3 ► pp. 607 ff. DOI logo
Salomaa, Elina & Esa Lehtinen
2023. Public note-taking on a digital platform as a workplace practice. Discourse Studies 25:6 ► pp. 775 ff. DOI logo
Magnusson, Simon
2021. Establishing jointness in proximal multiparty decision-making: The case of collaborative writing. Journal of Pragmatics 181 ► pp. 32 ff. DOI logo
Hall, Joan Kelly & Emily Rine Butler
2017. The shifting role of a document in managing conflict and shaping the outcome of a small group meeting. Text & Talk 37:5 DOI logo
De Stefani, Elwys & Paul Sambre
2016. L’exhibition et la négociation du savoir dans les pratiques définitoires : l’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide. Langages N° 204:4 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Svinhufvud, Kimmo
2016. Nodding and note-taking. Language and Dialogue 6:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 august 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.