Cover not available
Part of
Intersubjectivity in Action: Studies in language and social interaction
Edited by Jan K. Lindström, Ritva Laury, Anssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 326] 2021
► pp. 201–230

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 (55)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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 (2)

Cited by two other publications

Auer, Peter, Barbara Laner, Martin Pfeiffer & Kerstin Botsch
2024. Noticing and assessing nature. In New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 36], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
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 21 september 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.