Cover not available
Part of
Temporality in Interaction
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Susanne Günthner
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 27] 2015
► pp. 1–24

Introduction

Temporality in interaction

ORCID logo

The authors establish a phenomenological perspective on the temporal constitution of experience and action. Retrospection and projection (i.e. backward as well as forward orientation of everyday action), sequentiality and the sequential organization of activities as well as simultaneity (i.e. participants’ simultaneous coordination) are introduced as key concepts of a temporalized approach to interaction. These concepts are used to capture that every action is produced as an inter-linked step in the succession of adjacent actions, being sensitive to the precise moment where it is produced. The adoption of a holistic, multimodal and praxeological perspective additionally shows that action in interaction is organized according to several temporal orders simultaneously in operation. Each multimodal resource used in interaction has its own temporal properties.

Published online: 20 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.27.001int
References
Atkinson, John M. and John Heritage
(eds) 1984 Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter
1992 “Introduction: J. Gumperz’ Approach to Contextualization.” In The contextualization of Language, ed. by Peter Auer and Aldo Di Luzio, 1–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “On the Prosody and Syntax of Turn-Continuations.” In Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies, ed. by Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 57–100. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Online-Syntax.” Sprache und Literatur 85 (31): 43–56.Google Scholar
2005 “Projection in Interaction and Projection in Grammar.” Text 25 (1): 7–36.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “Increments and more. Anmerkungen zur augenblicklichen Diskussion über die Erweiterbarkeit von Turnkonstruktionseinheiten.” In Grammatik und Interaktion. Untersuchungen zum Zusammenhang von grammatischen Strukturen und Gesprächsprozessen, ed. by Arnulf Deppermann, Reinhard Fiehler, and Thomas Spranz-Fogasy, 279–304. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung; [URL].Google Scholar
2009 “Online Syntax: Thoughts on the Temporality of Spoken Language.” Language Sciences 31: 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, Peter and Stefan Pfänder
(eds) 2011 Constructions: Emergent or Emerging?, 1–21. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail M
1986 “The Problem of Speech Genres.” In Speech Genres and other Late Essays, (Transl. by V. McGee) ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist, 60–102. Austin, TX: Texas UP.Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar
2013 “From ‘intonation units’ to cesuring – an alternative approach to the prosodic-phonetic structuring of talk-in-interaction.” In Units of talk – units of action, ed. by Beatrcie Szczepek Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 91–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Jörg
1985 “Flüchtigkeit und methodische Fixierung sozialer Wirklichkeit: Aufzeichnungen als Daten der interpretativen Soziologie.” In Entzauberte Wissenschaft: Zur Relativität und Geltung soziologischer Forschung, ed. by Wolfgang Bonß and Heinz Hartmann, 299–320. Göttingen: Otto Schwartz.Google Scholar
Bergson, Henri
1970 [1889] “Essai sur les données immédiates de la conscience.” In Oeuvres, ed. by Henri Bergson, 1–157. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl
1982 [1934] Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Wordless Questions, Wordless Answers.” In Questions: Formal, Functional, and Interactional Perspectives, ed. by Jan P. de Ruiter, 81–102. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Susan A. Brennan
1991 “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick, John M. Levine, and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington, D. C.: APA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Tsuyoshi Ono
(ed) 2007 “Turn Continuation in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.” Special Issue of Pragmatics 17 (4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2013 “Turn-Design at Turn-Beginnings: Multimodal Resources to Deal with Tasks of Turn-Construction in German.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 91–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. “Multi-Modal Participation in Simultaneous Joint Projects: Inter-Personal and Intra-Personal Coordination in Paramedic Emergency Drills.” In Beyond multitasking: Multiactivity in Social Interaction ed. by Pentti Haddington, Maurice Nevile, Tiina Keisanen, and Lorenza Mondada 247 282 Amsterdam John Benjamins DOI logo
Deppermann, Arnulf and Reinhold Schmitt
2007 “Koordination. Zur Begründung eines neuen Forschungsgegenstandes.“ In Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Reinhold Schmitt, 15–54. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, Reinhold Schmitt, and Lorenza Mondada
2010 “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (6): 1700–1718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John
2010 “Towards a Dialogic Syntax.” University of California at Santa Barbara: Unpublished manuscript.
Ford, Cecilia
2004 “Contingency and Units in Interaction.” Discourse Studies 6 (1): 27–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. and Sandra A. Thompson
1996 Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, eds., Interaction and grammar, 135–184. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Sandra A. Thompson and Veronika Drake
2012 “Bodily-Visual Practices and Turn Continuation.” Discourse Processes 42 (3–4): 192–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1981 Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
1996 “Transparent Vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 “Action and Embodiment Within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Time in Action.” Current Anthropology 43: 19–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “The Co-Operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin, 147–190. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth and Thomas Kotschi
1996 “Textherstellungsverfahren in mündlicher Kommunikation.“ In Ebenen der Textstruktur, ed. by Wolfgang Motsch, 37–80. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J
1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne
2008 “Projektorkonstruktionen im Gespräch: Pseudoclefts, die Sache ist-Konstruktionen und Extrapositionen mit es.“ Gesprächsforschung 9: 86–114. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
2011a “Between Emergence and Sedimentation: Projecting Constructions in German Interactions.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 156–185. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b “ N be that-constructions in Everyday German Conversation. A Reanalysis of ‘die Sache ist/das Ding ist’ (‘the thing is’)-Clauses as Projector Phrases.” In Subordination in Conversation. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective, ed. by Ritva Laury and Ryoko Suzuki, 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Thomas Luckmann
2001 “Asymmetries of Repertoires of Communicative Genres.” In Culture in Communication: Analyses of Intercultural Situations, ed. by Aldo Di Luzio, Susanne Günthner and Franca Orletti, 55–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne and Paul Hopper
2010 “Zeitlichkeit & sprachliche Strukturen: Pseudoclefts im Englischen und Deutschen.“ Gesprächsforschung 11: 1–28. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne, Wolfgang Imo and Jörg Bücker
(eds.) 2014 Grammar and Dialogism: Sequential, Syntactic and Prosodic Patterns between Emergence and Sedimentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurwitsch, Aron
2010[1957] The Collected Works of Aron Gurwitsch (1901–1973): Volume III: The Field of Consciousness: Theme, Thematic Field, and Margin, ed. by Richard M. Zaner. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Haddington, Pentti, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile
2013 Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, Pentti, Maurice Nevile, Tiina Keisanen, and Lorenza Mondada
2014 “Towards Multiactivity as a Social and Interactional Phenomenon.” In Beyond Multitasking: Multiactivity in Social Interaction, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Maurice Nevile, Tiina Keisanen, and Lorenza Mondada, 3–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2008 “The Place of Intention in the Interactional Achievement of Implicature.” In Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, ed. by Istvan Kecskes and Jacob Mey, 45–81. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Steven E. Clayman
2010 Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John and Rod Watson
1979 “Formulations as Conversational Objects.” In Everyday Language, ed. by George Psathas, 123–162. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth and Rebecca Clift
2006 Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul
1987 “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistic Society 13, 139–157. Berkeley: U Berkeley P. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J
1998 “Emergent grammar.” In The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, ed. by Michael Tomasello, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2006 “Time and Grammar.” Münster: Paper given at International Conference on “Constructions in Interactions”.
Hopper, Paul
2011 “Emergent Grammar and Temporality in Interactional Linguistics.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 22–44. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul and J. Elizabeth Closs Traugott
1993 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund
1928 Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren Zeitbewußtseins. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1988 “Notes on a Possible Metric which Provides for a ‘Standard Maximum’ Silence of Approximately One Second in Conversation. In Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, ed. by Derek Roger and Peter Bull, 166–196. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
2004 “A Sketch of some Orderly Aspects of Overlap in Natural Conversation.” In Conversation Analysis. Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 43–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1924 The Philosophy of Grammar. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2013 “The Interdependence of Bodily Demonstrations and Clausal Syntax.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1972 “Some Relationships between Body Motion and Speech.” In Studies in Dyadic Communication, ed. by Aron Wolfe Seigman and Benjamin Pope, 177–216. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990 Conducting Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga
1993 “Disagreement and Concession in Disputes. On the Context-Sensitivity of Preference Structures.” Language in Society 22: 193–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H
1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-Progress.” Language in Society 20: 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 “The Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: Grammar as Action in Prompting a Speaker to Elaborate.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 37 (2): 151–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C
2013 “Action Formation and Ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidney and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar
Linde, Charlotte
1993 Life Stories: The Creation of Coherence. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
2009 Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar
Luke, Kang-kwong, Sandra A. Thompson and Tsuyoshi Ono
2012 “Turns and Increments: A Comparative Perspective.” Discourse Processes 49 (3–4): 155–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, Harrie and Mike Huiskes
2001 “Dutch ‘but’ as a Sequential Conjunction. Its Use as a Resumption Marker.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting and Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 141–169. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David
1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice
1945 Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2007 “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers.” Discourse Studies 9 (2): 195–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Emergent Focused Interactions in Public Places: A Systematic Analysis of the Multimodal Achievement of a Common Interactional Space.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1977–1997. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Talking and Driving: Multi-Activity in the Car.” Semiotica 191: 223–256.Google Scholar
2013 “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-Party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, Sigrid
2004 Analyzing Multimodal Interaction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor and Lisa Capps
2001 Living Narrative. Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
Oloff, Florence
2009 Contribution à l’étude systématique de l’organisation des tours de parole: les chevauchements en français et en allemand. Mannheim: Universität. [URL].Google Scholar
2013 “Embodied Withdrawal after Overlap Resolution.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 139–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2011 “Emergent grammar for all practical purposes: The on-line formatting of left and right dislocations in French conversation.” In Constructions: Emerging and Emergent, ed. by Peter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 45–87. Berlin/ Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psathas, George
1995 Conversation Analysis. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Psathas, George and Francis Chaput Waksler
1973 “Essential Features of Face-to-Face Interaction.” In Phenomenological Sociology: Issues and Applications, ed. by George Psathas, 59–83. New York: Wiley.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 John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Keisanen, Tiina and Mirka Rauniomaa
2012 “Two Multimodal Formats for Responding to Requests.” Journal of Pragmatics 44 (6–7): 829–842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Geoffrey
2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 68 (6): 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 “At the Intersection of Turn and Sequence Organization: On the Relevance of ‘Slots’ in Type-Conforming Responses to Polar Interrogatives.” In Units of Talk – Units of Action, ed. by Beatrice Sczcepek-Reed and Geoffrey Raymond, 169–206. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A
1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70: 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 “On some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by John M. Atkinson and John Heritage, 266–298. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1992a “In another context.” In Rethinking context. Language as an interpretative phenomenon, ed. by Charles Goodwin and Alessandro Duranti, 191–228. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1992b “Repair after Next Turn: The Last Structurally Provided Defense of Intersubjectivity in Conversation.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection between Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, ed. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Body torque. Social Research, 65, 535–586.Google Scholar
2000 “Overlapping talk and the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language in Society 29 (1): 1–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Reinhold
2005 “Zur multimodalen Struktur von turn-taking. Gesprächsforschung.“ Onlinezeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 6, 17–61. URL: [URL].Google Scholar
Schmitt, Reinhold and Arnulf Deppermann
2010 “Die Transition von Interaktionsräumen als Eröffnung einer neuen Situation.“ In Situationseröffnungen. Zur multimodalen Herstellung fokussierter Interaktion, ed. by Lorenza Mondada and Reinhold Schmitt, 335–386. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred
1974[1932] Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred and Thomas Luckmann
1979 Strukturen der Lebenswelt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret
2005 “Syntax and Prosody as Methods for the Construction and Identification of Turn-Constructional Units in Conversation.” In Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, ed. by Auli Hakulinen and Margret Selting, 17–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Beendigung(en) als interaktive Leistung.” In: Sprache als Prozeß, ed. by Heiko Hausendorf, 307–338. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
1984 “On the pragmatic poetry of prose: parallelism, repetition, and cohesive structure in the course of dyadic conversation.” In Meaning, Forms and Use in Context, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, 181–199. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
2009 “Forward-Gesturing.” Discourse Processes 4 (2–3): 161–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron
(eds.) 2011 Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja
2014 Deixis in der face-to-face interaktion. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., Barbara A. Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
2015. Grammar and Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logo
Tomasello, Michael
1999 The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
2003 Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
2008 Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Harald
1971[1964] Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes 58:4 ► pp. 293 ff. DOI logo
GREER, TIM & ZACHARY NANBU
2022. Visualizing Emergent Turn Construction: Seeing Writing While Speaking. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Günthner, Susanne
2021. WIR im interaktionalen Gebrauch: Zur Verwendung des Pronomens der 1. Person Plural in der institutionellen Kommunikation – am Beispiel onkologischer Aufklärungsgespräche. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 49:2 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Heath, Christian & Paul Luff
2021. Embodied Action, Projection, and Institutional Action: The Exchange of Tools and Implements During Surgical Procedures. Discourse Processes 58:3 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
Hopper, Paul J.
2021. “You turn your back and there’s somebody moving in”. Interactional Linguistics 1:1 ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Küttner, Uwe-Alexander & Chase Wesley Raymond
2022. I was gonna say…. In Sprachreflexive Praktiken [LiLi: Studien zu Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 4], ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Marmorstein, Michal
2021. Discourse markers as a lens to variation across speech and writing. Functions of Language 28:2 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Pauletto, Franco & Biagio Ursi
2021. ”Eh ciò, Sergio el xe stà anca sfortunà”. Cuadernos de Filología Italiana 28 ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
PEKAREK DOEHLER, SIMONA & SØREN W. ESKILDSEN
2022. Emergent L2 Grammars in and for Social Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Modern Language Journal 106:S1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Tuncer, Sylvaine, Oskar Lindwall & Barry Brown
2021. Making Time: Pausing to Coordinate Video Instructions and Practical Tasks. Symbolic Interaction 44:3 ► pp. 603 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 march 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.