Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 274–305

Requesting in shop encounters

Multimodal gestalts and their interactional and institutional accountability

| University of Basel

The chapter offers a systematic study of requests in shop encounters. Considering their detailed formats, constituted through the specific assembling of diverse resources including speakers’ turn, gaze, gestures, and body postures that I call multimodal Gestalts, it identifies different types of requests and their sequential implicativeness. The chapter shows how these multimodal formats are methodically bound to the categorization of speakers/customers, their epistemic and sensorial relations to the product, and as a consequence, to the response of the seller, the service they offer, and the progressivity of the encounter. In this sense, multimodal Gestalts are crucial for understanding the systematic accountability of the action and its sequential organization, as well as the social-institutional features of the situated activity in which this action is embedded. The study contributes to IL research by demonstrating how linguistic and embodied resources are deeply and systematically intertwined, and showing the necessity to go beyond talk for understanding the variation and indexicality of social actions.

Keywords: requests, multimodality, multimodal Gestalt, shop encounter, gaze, pointing gesture, body posture, reference, materiality, multisensoriality, video-recorded data in French, English, Italian, Spanish, German, Swedish
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.State of the art: The multimodal formatting of requests
  • 3.Data and methodology
  • 4.Simplest requests: Naming the product
    • 4.1Requesting by naming the product
    • 4.2Requesting by naming and quickly glancing/pointing to the product
  • 5.Requesting by naming the product while bodily orienting to it
    • 5.1Checking (on) the requested product
    • 5.2Searching for a product to request
  • 6.Requests and multimodal epistemic stances: The consequentiality of displaying (not) knowing
    • 6.1Requesting the product with its name vs. deictic expressions
    • 6.2Requests naming the product while looking at it, followed by a check of knowledge
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References
Cekaite, Asta
2010 “Shepherding the Child: Embodied Directive Sequences in Parent-Child Interactions.” Text and Talk 30, 1: 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2014 “What Does Grammar Tell Us about Action?” Pragmatics 24, 3: 623–647.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter
2010 “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12, 4: 419–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curl, Traci S., and Paul Drew
2008 “Contingency and Action: A Comparison of Two Forms of Requesting.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41, 2: 129–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Antoni, Federica, and Elwys De Stefani
2022 “On being known: Displays of familiarity in Italian Café encounters”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 55:1, 79–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Day, Dennis, and Johannes Wagner
(eds.) 2019 Objects, Bodies and Work Practices. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2013 “Multimodal Interaction from a Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 46, 1: 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Instruction Practices in German Driving Lessons: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28: 265–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Michael Haugh
(eds.) 2021 Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys
2014 “Establishing Joint Attention towards Commercial Objects in Self-Service Stores.” In Interacting with Objects. Language, Materiality and Social Activity, ed. by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann, and Mirka Rauniomaa, 275–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
De Stefani, Elwys, and Anne-Danièle Gazin
2014 “Instructional Sequences in Driving Lessons: Mobile Participants and the Temporal and Sequential Organization of Actions.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.) 2014 Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara, and Trine Heinemann
2015 “The Alignment of Manual and Verbal Displays in Requests for the Repair of an Object.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48, 3: 342–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Rethinking Format: An Examination of Requests.” Language in Society 45: 499–531. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1981 Conversational Organization. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2017 Co-Operative Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Asta Cekaite
2013 “Calibration in Directive-Response Trajectories in Family Interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 46, 1: 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harjunpää, Katariina, Lorenza Mondada, and Kimmo Svinhufvud
2018 “The Coordinated Entry into Service Encounters in Food Shops.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 3: 271–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 1–29. 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: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keevallik, Leelo
2018 “What Does Embodied Interaction Tell Us about Grammar?” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51, 1: 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laurier, Eric
2013 “Encounters at the Counter: The Relationship between Regulars and Staff.” In Ethnomethodology at Play, ed. by Peter Tolmie, and Mark Rouncefield, 287–308. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven
2012 “Action formation and ascription”. In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merritt, Marilyn
1976 “On Questions Following Questions in Service Encounters” Language in Society 5, 3: 315–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2014a “Requesting Immediate Action in the Surgical Operating Room: Time, Embodied Resources and Praxeological Embeddedness.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 271–304. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b “Pointing, Talk and the Bodies: Reference and Joint Attention as Embodied Interactional Achievements.” In From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Utterance in Action, ed. by Mandana Seyfeddinipur, and Marianne Gullberg, 95–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20, 2: 2–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Imperatives in Action: Precision Timing and Timed Embeddedness in Embodied Courses of Action.” In Imperatives in Interaction, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 65–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2018a “The Multimodal Interactional Organization of Tasting: Practices of Tasting Cheese in Gourmet Shops.” Discourse Studies 20, 6: 743–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018b “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
2019a “Contemporary Issues in Conversation Analysis: Embodiment and Materiality, Multimodality and Multisensoriality.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 47–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019b “Participants’ Orientations to Material and Sensorial Features of Objects: Looking, Touching, Smelling and Tasting while Requesting Products in Shops.” Gesprächsforschung 20: 461–494.Google Scholar
2021 Sensing in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
2016 “Making Multiple Requests in French and Finnish Convenience Stores.” Language in Society 45, 5: 733–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, Robert J.
2008 “When Names Fail: Referential Practice in Face-to-Face Service Encounters.” Language in Society 37, 3: 385–413. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevile, Maurice, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann, and Mirka Rauniomaa
(eds.) 2014 Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossano, Federico
2012 “Gaze in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 308–329. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1984 “On Some Gestures’ Relation to Talk.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 266–295. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, and Liisa Raevaara
2014 “On the Grammatical Form of Requests at the Convenience Store: Requesting as Embodied Action.” In Requesting in Social Interaction, ed. by Paul Drew, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 243–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2004 ““No no no” and Other Types of Multiple Sayings in Social Interaction.” Human Communication Research 30: 260–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen
1996 “How to Do Things with Things: Objects Trouvés and Symbolization.” Human Studies 19, 4: 365–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron
(eds.) 2011 Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traverso, Veronique
2001 “Syrian Service Encounters. A Case of Shifting Strategies within Verbal Exchange.” Pragmatics 11, 4: 421–444.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann
2013 “Responsibility and Action: Object Requests in English and Polish Everyday Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46, 3: 256–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar