Cover not available
Part of
Reference: From conventions to pragmatics
Edited by Laure Gardelle, Laurence Vincent-Durroux and Hélène Vinckel-Roisin
[Studies in Language Companion Series 228] 2023
► pp. 287–304

“peut-être on peut improviser un peu”

The emergence of joint construction of reference in a card game situation

| Université Lumière Lyon 2 | CNRS, ICAR
| SKILDER
| CNRS, ICAR | ENS de Lyon
| CNRS, ICAR
| Université Lumière Lyon 2 | CNRS, ICAR | SKILDER
| CNRS, ICAR
Following the methodological approach of multimodal conversation analysis, our study focuses on the emergence of a jointly constructed reference during a card game interaction: the participants need to find a common solution in order to continue their activity. The data collected in situ allow us to apprehend the different verbal and non-verbal resources mobilised by the players in order to show that in social interaction reference construction is a joint achievement that involves various types of resources which are temporally finely tuned (among others joint visual attention on the object gesturally put in focus). We also show that once a referent-function association is established and grounded, it can be “activated” later on by using an iconic gesture.
Keywords: jointly constructed reference, multimodality, interaction, naturally occurring data
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Referential practices in social interaction
  • 2.Methodological approach and data description
    • 2.1Methodological approach
    • 2.2Data description
  • 3.Joint construction of reference and function association
  • 4.The joint construction of reference as multimodal work
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.228.15bal
References (45)
References
Apothéloz, Denis & Pekarek Doehler Simona. 2003. Nouvelles perspectives sur la référence. Verbum 25(2): 109–139.Google Scholar
Balantani, Angeliki & Lázaro, Stefanie. 2021. Joint attention and reference construction: The role of pointing and “so”. Language & Communication 79: 33–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berio, Leda, Latrouite, Anja, Van Valin, Robert & Vosgerau, Gottfried. 2017. Immediate and general common ground. In Modeling and Using Context [CONTEXT 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 10257], Patrick Brézillon, Roy Turner & Carlo Penco (eds). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma. 2015. Recipient design in reference choice: Negotiating knowledge, access, and sequential trajectories. Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 16: 137–173Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 27–55. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Brennan, Susan E. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine & Stephanie D. Teasley (eds), 127–149. Washinton DC: American Psychological Association. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margret. 2017. Interactional linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2015. Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Temporality in Interaction [Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27], Arnulf Deppermann & Susanne Günthner (eds), 57–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Changes in turn-design over interactional histories – The case of instructions in driving school lessons. In Time in Embodied Interaction. Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 293], Arnulf Deppermann & Jürgen Streeck (eds), 293–324. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf & Haugh, Michael (eds). 2022. Action Ascription in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys. 2010. Reference as an interactively and multimodally accomplished practice. Organizing spatial reorientation in guided tours. In Spoken communication, Massimo Pettorino, Antonella Giannini, Isabella Chiari & Francesca Dovetto (eds), 137–170. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. 2017. Reference. In Handbook of Conversation Analysis, J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds), 433–454. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. & Stivers, Tanya. (eds). 2007. Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1892. Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 100: 25–50.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles & Goodwin, Marjorie. 1996. Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Cognition and Communication at Work, Yrjo Engeström & David Middleton (eds), 61–95. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco, Luca & Traverso, Véronique. 2016. L’activité de définition dans l’interaction: Objets, ressources, formats. Langage 204: 5–26.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and Semantics 3: 41–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holler, Judith. 2010. Speaker’s use of interactive gestures as markers of common ground. In Gesture in Embodied Communication and Human-Computer Interaction, Stefan Kopp & Ipke Wachsmuth (eds), 11–22. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred & Musan, Renate. 2012. Information structure: Overview and linguistic issues. In The Expression of Information Structure, Manfred Krifka & Renate Musan (eds), 1–44. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2003. La construction de la référence comme travail interactif: Accomplir la visibilité du détail anatomique durant une opération chirurgicale. Cadernos de Estudos Linguísticos 44: 57–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9(2): 194–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Organisation multimodale de la parole-en-interaction: Pratiques incarnées d’introduction des référents. Langue Française 175: 129–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1): 85–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 145: 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nishizaka, Aug. 2000. Seeing what one sees: Perception, emotion, and activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity 7(1–2): 105–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piccoli, Vanessa & Chernyshova, Elizaveta. 2018. ‘Du vin pour choper’: Identité masculine, blague (hétéro)sexuelles et affiliation lors d’une première rencontre entre hommes. Revue Tranel 69: 99–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita & Heritage, John. 2013. Preference. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds), 210–229. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1975. The meaning of “meaning”. Language, Mind, and Knowledge. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emmanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emmanuel A. 2007[1979]. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Person Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, Nicolas J. Enfield & Tanya Stivers (eds), 23–28. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. 1987. Analyzing single episodes of interaction: An exercise in conversation analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 101–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 26(1): 99–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In Studies in Anaphora [Typological Studies in Language 33], Barbara A. Fox (ed.), 437–486. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007a. Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies 9(4), 433–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007b. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014. Take the words out of my mouth: Verbal instructions as embodied practices. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 80–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Kevin A. & Lerner, Gene H. 2009. When are persons ‘white’? On some practical asymmetries of racial reference in talk-in-interaction. Discourse & Society 20(5): 613–641. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, Kaiser, Julia, Weidner, Matylda, Mondada, Lorenza, Rossi, Giovanni & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2021. Rule talk: Instructing proper play with impersonal deontic statements. Frontiers in Communication 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar