Cover not available
Part of
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 201–

Shared understandings of the human–nature relationship in encounters with small wildlife

| University of Oulu
| University of Oulu
| University of Oulu

Drawing on video data and ethnomethodological conversation analysis, the study focuses on sequences of human action and interaction in which participants orient to small wildlife within their nature-related activities outdoors. The participants are family members, friends or participants on organized outings, and they engage in activities such as trekking, foraging and fishing. The study examines moments when small wildlife become the focus of the participants’ talk and other action and when the relationship between human beings and the natural world is thus constructed in situ. The study considers how participants in such moments display, pursue and achieve shared understandings about what the appropriate ways of treating other living beings and, more generally, conducting oneself in nature are.

Keywords: conversation analysis, ethnomethodology, human–nature relationship, intersubjectivity, multimodality, nature, shared understanding, social interaction, wildlife
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Displaying shared understandings
    • 3.2Setting an example and guiding others to achieve a shared understanding
    • 3.3Guiding and instructing others to pursue a shared understanding
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 17 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.326.10rau
References
Bergeå, Hanna, Cathrin Martin, and Fritjof Sahlström
2008 “ ‘I Don’t Know What You’re Looking for’: Professional Vision in Swedish Agricultural Extension on Nature Conservation Management.” Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 14 (4): 329–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, Mathias, and Lorenza Mondada
2013 “Walking Away: The Embodied Achievement of Activity Closings in Mobile Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 47 (1): 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, Asta
2015 “The Coordination of Talk and Touch in Adults’ Directives to Children: Touch and Social Control.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (2): 152–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24: 623–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys
2010 “Reference as an Interactively and Multimodally Accomplished Practice. Organizing Spatial Reorientation in Guided Tours.” In Spoken Communication, ed. by Massimo Pettorino, Antonella Giannini, Isabella Chiari, and Francesca Dovetto, 137–170. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Lorenza Mondada
2014 “Reorganizing Mobile Formations: When “Guided” Participants Initiate Reorientations in Guided Tours.” Space and Culture 17 (2): 157–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Who’s the Expert? Negotiating Competence and Authority in Guided Tours.” In Identity Struggles: Evidence from Workplaces around the World, ed. by Dorien Van De Mieroop, and Stephanie Schnurr, 95–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2015a “When Recipient Design Fails: Egocentric Turn-Design of Instructions in Driving School Lessons Leading to Breakdowns of Intersubjectivity.” Gesprächsforschung 16: 63–101.Google Scholar
2015b “Retrospection and Understanding in Interaction.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, and Susanne Günthner, 57–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019 “Intersubjectivity and Other Grounds for Action-Coordination in an Environment of Restricted Interaction: Coordinating with Oncoming Traffic When Passing an Obstacle.” Language & Communication 65: 22–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasulo, Alessandra, Heather Loyd, and Vincenzo Padiglione
2007 “Children’s Socialization into Cleaning Practices: A Cross-Cultural Perspective.” Discourse & Society 18: 11–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fatigante, Marilena, Vivian Liberatia, and Clotilde Pontecorvo
2010 “Transitions In and Out of Games: How Parents and Children Bracket Game Episodes at Home.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (4): 346–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galatolo, Renata, and Letizia Caronia
2018 “Morality at Dinnertime: The Sense of the Other as a Practical Accomplishment in Family Interaction.” Discourse & Society 29 (1): 43–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold
1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
George, Rachel
2013 “ ‘What’s a Vendetta?’ Political Socialization in the Everyday Interactions of Los Angeles Families.” Discourse & Society 24 (1): 46–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glenn, Phillip
1989 “Initiating Shared Laughter in Multi-Party Conversations.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 127–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
2012 “Car Talk: Integrating Texts, Bodies, and Changing Landscapes.” Semiotica 191 (1): 257–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
2007 “Occasioned Knowledge Exploration in Family Interaction.” Discourse & Society 18 (1): 93–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile
2014 “Towards Multiactivity as a Social and Interactional Phenomenon.” In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 3–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, Leelo Keevallik Eriksson, and Jan Lindström
2003. “Kuule, kule, hördu – projicerande praktiker i finska, estniska och svenska samtal [Kuule, kule, hördu– practices of projection in Finnish, Estonian and Swedish conversation].” In Grammatik och samtal: Studier till minne av Mats Eriksson [Grammar and conversation: Studies in the memory of Mats Eriksson], ed. by Bengt Nordberg, Leelo Keevallik Eriksson, Kerstin Thelander, and Mats Thelander, 199–218. Uppsala: Uppsala universitet.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Eeva-Leena Seppänen
1992 “Finnish kato: From Verb to Particle.” Journal of Pragmatics 18: 527–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakulinen, Auli, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2009 “Designing Utterances for Action: Verb Repeat Responses to Assessments.” In Talk in Interaction. Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 124–151. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Tanya Stivers
1999 “Online Commentary in Acute Medical Visits: A Method of Shaping Patient Expectations.” Social Science & Medicine 49: 1501–1517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2010 “Bodily Quoting in Dance Correction.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 43 (4): 401–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina
2012 “ ‘Uh-Oh, We Were Going There’: Environmentally Occasioned Noticings of Trouble in In-Car Interaction.” Semiotica 191: 199–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, and Mirka Rauniomaa
2019 “Classifying Finds in Foraging on the Basis of (Guided) Sensory Inspection.” Gesprächsforschung 20: 518–544.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Pauliina Siitonen
2017 “Transitions as Sites of Socialization in Family Interaction Outdoors.” Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 14: 24–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laitinen, Lea
1995 ”Nollapersoona [Zero person].” Virittäjä 99 (3): 337–357.Google Scholar
Linell, Per, and Jan Lindström
2016 “Partial Intersubjectivity and Sufficient Understandings for Current Practical Purposes: On a Specialized Practice in Swedish Conversation.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 39 (2): 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundgren, Charlotte
2017 “Ridtränares kommunikation under privatlektioner i dressyr: En samtalsanalytisk studie [The communication of trainers in equestrian dressage: A multimodal interaction analysis].” Scandinavian Sport Studies Forum 8: 67–86.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
n.d. “Conventions for Multimodal Transcription Accessed 26 October 2020. Available at: [URL]
Mondémé, Chloe
2016 “Extension de la question de ‘l’ordre social’ aux interactions hommes/animaux – une approche ethnométhodologique [Extending the notion of ‘social order’ to human/animal interaction. An ethnomethodological approach].” L’Année Sociologique 66 (2): 319–350.Google Scholar
2018 “Comment parle-t-on aux animaux? Formes et effets pragmatiques de l’adresse aux animaux de compagnie [How do we talk to animals? Modes and pragmatic effects of communication with pets].” Langage et société 163: 77–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mortensen, Kristian, and Johannes Wagner
2019 “Inspection Sequences – Multisensorial Inspections of Unfamiliar Objects.” Gesprächsforschung 20: 399–343.Google Scholar
Mysterud, Atle, Knut Madslien, Anders Herland, Hildegunn Viljugrein, and Bjørnar Ytrehus
2016 “Phenology of Deer Ked (Lipoptena cervi) Host-Seeking Flight Activity and Its Relationship with Prevailing Autumn Weather.” Parasites & Vectors 9: 95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor
1996 “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Stephen C. Levinson, 407–437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi B. Schieffelin
1984 “Language Acquisition and Socialization: Three Developmental Stories and Their Implications.” In Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self and Emotion, ed. by Richard A. Shweder, and Robert A. LeVine, 276–320. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2011 “The Theory of Language Socialization.” In The Handbook of Language Socialization, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs, and Bambi B. Schieffelin, 1–21. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pontecorvo, Clotilde, Alessandra Fasulo, and Laura Sterponi
2001 “Mutual Apprentices: The Making of Parenthood and Childhood in Family Dinner Conversations.” Human Development 44 (6): 340–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raevaara, Liisa
1989 “No – vuoronalkuinen partikkeli [No – a turn-initial particle].” In Suomalaisen keskustelun keinoja I [Characteristics of Finnish conversation I], ed. by Auli Hakulinen, 147–161. Helsinki: Department of Finnish, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
2017 “Adjusting the Design of Directives to the Activity Environment. Imperatives in Finnish Cooking Club Interaction.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 381–410. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mirka
2017 “Assigning Roles and Responsibilities. Finnish Imperatively Formatted Directive Actions in a Mobile Instructional Setting.” In Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 325–355. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, Federico
2013 “Sequence Organization and Timing of Bonobo Mother–Infant Interactions.” Interaction Studies 14 (2): 160–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, Federico, and Katja Liebal
2014 “ ‘Requests’ and ‘Offers’ in Orangutans and Human Infants.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 335–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1992 “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” The American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siitonen, Pauliina, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Tiina Keisanen
2019 “ ‘Kato. Hulluna puolukoita.’ Kato vuorovaikutuksen resurssina luontoilussa [‘Kato. An insane amount of lingonberries.’ Kato as an interactional resource in nature-related activities].” Virittäjä 123 (4): 518–549.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Auli Hakulinen
2009 “Alternative Responses to Assessments.” In Conversation Analysis. Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 280–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Virkkula, Outi
2018 “Customer-Driven Questioning in Finnish Forestry Advisory Conversations.” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 33 (3): 271–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1995 “Joint Attention as Social Cognition.” In Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development, ed. by Chris Moore, and Philip J. Dunham, 103–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Waters, Jane, and Amanda Bateman
2015 “Revealing the Interactional Features of Learning and Teaching Moments in Outdoor Activity.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23 (2): 264–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Siitonen, Pauliina, Mirka Rauniomaa & Tiina Keisanen
2021. Language and the Moving Body: Directive Actions With the Finnish kato “look” in Nature-Related Activities. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 may 2023. 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.