Cover not available
Part of
Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity
Edited by Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka Rauniomaa
[Not in series 186] 2014
► pp. 3–26

On the interactional ecology of objects

 | University of Southern Denmark
 | University of Oulu
 | University of Southern Denmark
 | University of Oulu
The empirical studies of this book examine how objects feature in the momentto-moment conduct of social interaction and activity. The studies draw on naturally occurring data, video recordings of people interacting with one another as they engage with objects for a wide range of purposes, across many real-life settings, situations and occasions. Here in this introductory chapter we define ‘object’, and highlight how objects in the social world have been investigated across scholarly fields. We outline the dominant methodological and analytic influences for this collection, ethnomethodology (EM) and conversation analysis (CA), and emphasise the significance of embodiment and materiality. We describe the broad arrangement of the chapters around two overarching themes, ‘Objects as situated resources’ and ‘Objects as practical accomplishments’. Lastly, looking across the chapters we identify a number of possible alternative points of convergence which emerge when objects in and for social interaction are themselves treated as the principal focus of analysis.
Published online: 12 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.01int
References (182)
Alby, F. & Zucchermaglio, C. (2007). Embodiment at the interface: Materialization practices in web design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(2–3), 255–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, A. (Ed.). (1986). The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, L. (2012). Dialogic embodied action: using gesture to organize sequence and participation in instructional interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(3), 269–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Attfield, J. (2000). Wild things: The material culture of everyday life. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1979). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brassac, Ch., Fixmer, P., Mondada, L., & Vinck, D. (2008). Interweaving objects, gestures, and talk in context. Mind, Culture and Activity, 15(2), 208–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broth, M. (2008). The studio interaction as a contextual resource for TV-production. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(5), 904–926. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Seeing through screens, hearing through speakers: Managing distant studio space in television control room interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1998–2016. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Busch, A. (2005). The uncommon life of common objects: Essays on design and the everyday. New York: Metropolis Books.Google Scholar
Cobb, P. (2002). Reasoning with tools and inscriptions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 187–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Costall, A., & Dreier O. (Eds.). (2006). Doing things with things: The design and use of everyday objects. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dant, T. (1999). Material culture in the social world: Values, activities, lifestyles. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
. (2005). Materiality and society. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (Ed.). (2013a). Conversation analytic studies of multimodal interaction. Special issue for Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013b). Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donovan, J., Heinemann, T., Matthews, B., & Buur, J. (2011). Getting the point: The role of gesture in managing intersubjectivity in a design activity. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 25, 221–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas, M., & Isherwood, B. (1996). The world of goods: Towards an anthropology of consumption, 2nd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Egbert, M., & Deppermann, A. (Eds.). (2012). Hearing aids communication: Integrating social interaction, audiology and user centered design to improve hearing technology use. Mannheim: Verlagfür Gesprächforschung.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y., & Blackler, F. (2005). On the life of the object. Organization, 12, 307–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, M. (2009). Referring as interaction: On the interplay between linguistic and bodily practices. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 240–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evaldsson, A.-C. (2004). Shifting moral stances: Morality and gender in same-sex and cross-sex game interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(3), 331–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fasulo, A., & Monzoni, C. (2009). Assessing mutable objects: A multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 362–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Filipi, A. (2009). Toddler and parent interaction: The organisation of gaze, pointing and vocalisation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C.E. (1999). Collaborative construction of task activity: Coordinating multiple resources in a high school physics lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32(4), 369–408. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, D., & Hester, S. (2004). An invitation to ethnomethodology: Language, society and interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1893/1952). On sense and reference. In P. Geach, & M. Black (Eds.), Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. ([1967] 1984). Studies in ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Edited by A.W. Rawls. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M., & Livingston, E. (1981). The work of a discovering science construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131–158.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Glenn, P., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Epistemic authority in employment interviews: Glancing, pointing, touching. Discourse & Communication, 5, 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 143–186). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25, 237–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). The body in action. In J. Coupland, & R. Gwyn (Eds.), Discourse, the body and identity(pp. 19–42). New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.Google Scholar
. (2007). Environmentally coupled gestures. In S. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the dynamic dimensions of language (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (2010). Things and their embodied environments. In L. Malafouris, & C. Renfrew (Eds.), The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind. (pp. 103–120). Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1/2), 51–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1996). Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 61–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Contested vision: The discursive constitution of Rodney King. In B. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, & B. Nordberg (Eds.), The construction of professional discourse (pp. 292–316). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M.H. (1995). Assembling a response: Setting and collaboratively constructed work talk. In P. ten Have, & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 173–186).Washington DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, and University Press of America.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M.H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: Integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, 191, 257–286.Google Scholar
Gregson, N., & Crewe, L. (2003). Second-hand cultures. New York, NY: Berg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P., & Rauniomaa, M. (2011). Technologies, multitasking and driving: Attending to and preparing for a mobile phone conversation in the car. Human Communication Research. 37(2), 223–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2014). Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2012). Meaning in motion: Interaction in cars. Special Issue for Semiotica, 191(1/4).Google Scholar
Haddington, P., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (2013a). Being mobile: Interaction on the move. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 3–61). Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Eds.). (2013b). Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hallam, E., & Ingold, T. (Eds.). (2007). Creativity and cultural improvisation. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hanks, W.F. (1990). Referential practice: Language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hausendorf, H., Mondada, L., & Schmitt, R. (Eds.). (2012). Raum als interaktive Ressource. [Space as an interactional resource] Tübingen: Forschungen des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. (2nd edition.) London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heath, C. (1986). Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Body work: The collaborative production of the clinical object. In J. Heritage, & D. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 185–213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). The dynamics of auction: Social interaction and the sale of fine art and antiques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Hindmarsh, J. (2000). Configuring action in objects: From mutual space to media space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1&2), 81–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, C. & Luff, P. (2013). Embodied action and organisational interaction: Establishing contract on the strike of a hammer. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 24–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, T., Mitchell, R., & Buur, J. (2009). Co-constructing meaning with materials in innovation workshops. In B. Darras, & S. Belkhamsa (Eds.), Objets et Communication [Objects and Communication], MEI 30–31 (pp. 289–304). Paris: Aujourd’hui.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(5), 523–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2003). Transcending the object in embodied interaction. In J. Coupland, & R. Gwyn (Eds.) Discourse, the body, and identity (pp. 43–69). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P., & Dunne, S. (2011). Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 489–503. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (Ed.). (1991). The meanings of things: Material culture and symbolic expression. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives: An essay on the semantics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology of demonstratives and other indexicals. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keisanen, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (2012). The organization of participation and contingency in prebeginnings of request sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 323–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, C.M., & Dixon Keller, J. (1996). Cognition and tool use: The blacksmith at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M., & Zimmerman, D.H. (2007). Joint attention as action. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(3), 592–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knoblauch, H. (Ed.). (2012). Video-analysis and videography: Methodology and methods. Special issue for Qualitative Research, 12(3).Google Scholar
Knorr Cetina, K. (1997). Sociality of objects. Theory, Culture & Society, 14(4), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., Dunnington, G., & Kim, M. (2012). Team cognition and the accountabilities of the tool pass. In E. Salas, S. Fiore, & M. Letsky (Eds.), Theories of team cognition: Cross-disciplinary perspectives (pp. 405–420). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., & Feltovich, P. (2006). The mystery of the missing referent: Objects, procedures, and the problem of the instruction follower. In S. Greenberg, & G. Mark (Eds.), Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 373–382). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
. (2011). “Can you see the cystic artery yet?”: A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 521–541. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., Zemel, A., & Dunnington, G. (2007). Formulating the triangle of doom. Gesture, 7(1), 97–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koslicki, K. (2008). The structure of objects. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kääntä, L., & Piirainen-Marsh, A. (2013). Manual guiding in peer group interaction: A resource for organizing a practical classroom task. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(4), 322–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landgrebe, J., & Heinemann, T. (in press). Mapping the epistemic landscape in innovation workshops. Pragmatics & Society.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor–network theory. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laurier, E., & Brown, B. (2008). Rotating maps and readers: Praxiological aspects of alignment and orientation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 33, 201–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). The reservations of the editor: The routine work of showing and knowing the film in the edit suite. Journal of Social Semiotics, 21(2), 239–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laycock, H. (2006a). Words without objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leeds‐Hurwitz, W. (1987). The social history of The Natural History of an Interview: A multidisciplinary investigation of social communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20(1–4), 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, P., Nardi, B.A., & Kallinikos, J. (Eds.). (2012). Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Translated from Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). La Pensée sauvage. PLON: Paris].Google Scholar
Luck, R. (2010). Using objects to coordinate design activity in interaction. Construction Management and Economics, 28, 641–655. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., & Heath, C. (2002). Broadcast talk: Initiating calls through a computer-mediated technology. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 35(3), 337–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lunt, P., & Livingstone, S. (1992). Mass consumption and personal identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., Livingston, E., & Garfinkel, H. (1983/1990). Temporal order in laboratory work. In J. Coulter (Ed.), Ethnomethodological sociology (pp. 416–449). Brookfield, Vermont: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Macbeth, D. (1994). Classroom encounters with the unspeakable: “Do you see, Danelle?”. Discourse Processes, 17, 311–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malafouris, L., & Renfrew, C. (Eds.). (2010). The cognitive life of things: Recasting the boundaries of the mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.Google Scholar
McIlvenny, P., Broth, M., & Haddington, P. (Eds.). (2009). Communicating place, space and mobility. Special Issue for Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10).Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1981). Action, thought, and language. Cognition, 10, 201–208. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merricks, T. (2001). Objects and persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. (1987). Material culture and mass consumption. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miller, K. (2008). Thing and object. Acta Analytica, 23(1), 69–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. (Ed.). (2013). Cultural histories of the material world. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2003). Working with video: How surgeons produce video records of their tasks. Visual Studies, 18, 58–73. 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
. (2012a). Garden lessons: Embodied action and joint attention in extended sequences. In H. Nasu, & F.C. Waksler (Eds.), Interaction and everyday life: Phenomenological and ethnomethodological essays in Honor of George Psathas. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
. (2012b). Talking and driving: Multiactivity in the car. Semiotica, 191(1/4), 223–256.Google Scholar
. (2012c). Video analysis and the temporality of inscriptions within social interaction: The case of architects at work. Qualitative Research, 12, 304–333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L., & Schmitt, R. (Eds.). (2010). Situationseröffnungen: Zur multimodalen Herstellung fokussierter Interaktion. [Situation openings: On the multimodal accomplishment of focused interaction] Studien zur Deutschen Sprache. Forschungen des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Murphy, K.M. (2012). Transmodality and temporality in design interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 44, 1966–1981. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M.F. (2012). Using artifacts in brainstorming sessions to secure participation and decouple sequentiality. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 64–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nevile, M. (2004a). Beyond the black box: Talk-in-interaction in the airline cockpit. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
. (2004b). Integrity in the airline cockpit: Embodying claims about progress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(4), 447–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). “You are well clear of friendlies”: Diagnostic error and cooperative work in an Iraq War friendly fire incident. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18, 147–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013a). Collaboration in crisis: Pursuing perception through multiple descriptions (how friendly vehicles became damn rocket launchers). In A. De Rycker and Z. Mohd Don (Eds.), Discourse and crisis: Critical perspectives (pp. 159–183). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013b). From body to objects: First steps in tracking an embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Public lectures at The University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, and The University of Iceland, Reykjavík(both October).Google Scholar
. (2014). A complete chronological bibliography of the journal Research on Language and Social Interaction, 1987–2013. Available at [URL]Google Scholar
. (in preparation). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction: A review of studies in ROLSI , 1987–2013. Paper for submission to the journal Research on Language and Social Interaction .
Nevile, M., & Haddington, P. (2010). In-car distractions and their impact on driving activities. Canberra: Department of Infrastructure and Transport. RSGR 2010-001.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2006). What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39(2), 119–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Hand touching hand: Referential practice at a Japanese midwife house. Human Studies, 30(3), 199–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2011). The embodied organization of a real-time fetus: The visible and the invisible in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 309–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noy, C. (2012). Inhabiting the family-car: Children-passengers and parents-drivers on the school run. Semiotica, 191, 309–333.Google Scholar
Norman, D.A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I come down I’m in the domain state”: Grammar and graphic representation in the interpretative activity of physicists. In E. Ochs, E.A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 328–369). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T. (2009). Thinking objects: Contemporary approaches to product design. Lausanne: Ava Publishing.Google Scholar
Phillabaum, S. (2005). Calibrating photographic vision through multiple semiotic resources. Semiotica, 156(1/4), 147–175.Google Scholar
Pike, K.L. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of structure of human behavior (2nd edition). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pitsch, K. (2012). Exponat – Alltagsgegenstand – Turngerät. Zur interaktiven Konstitution von Objekten in einer Museumsausstellung. [Exhibition object – Everyday object – Turntaking device. On the interactional constitution of objects in a museum exhibition] In H. Hausendorf, L. Mondada & R. Schmitt (Eds.), Raum als interaktive Ressource. [Space as an interactional resource]. (pp. 233–273) Tübingen: Forschungen des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B.J. (1997). Conversation Analysis: An approach to the study of social action as sense making practices. In T.A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 64–91). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Psathas, G. (1979). Organizational features of direction maps. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 203–226). New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
. (1986). Some sequential structures in direction-giving. Human Studies, 9(2–3), 231–246. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1990). The organization of talk, gaze, and activity in a medical interview. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 205–230). Washington DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. (1991). The structure of direction-giving in interaction. In D. Boden, & D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structures: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 195–216). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. (1992). The study of extended sequences: The case of the garden lesson. In G. Watson, & R.M. Seiler (Eds.), Text in context: Contributions to ethnomethodology (pp. 99–122). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rae, J. (2001). Organizing participation in interaction: Doing participation framework. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 253–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rendle-Short, J. (2006). The academic presentation: Situated talk in action. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation [1964–1972]. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E.A. (2002). Home position. Gesture, 2(2), 133–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A. (1979). The relevance of repair for syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse and syntax (pp. 261–288). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1992). Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.Google Scholar
. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7(4), 289–327.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M.B. & Miller, A.R. (1999). The material life of human beings: Artifacts, behavior, and communication. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schliemann, A.D. (2002). Representational tools and mathematical understanding. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11, 301–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sennett, R. (2008). The craftsman. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2009). The corporeal turn: An interdisciplinary reader. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2011). Conversation analysis. An introduction. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2005). Multimodal interaction. Special Issue of Semiotica, 156.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stafford, B.M. (2009). Echo objects: The cognitive work of images. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (1996). How to do things with things. Human Studies, 19, 365–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2009). Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L.A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L., Trigg, R. & Blomberg, J. (2002). Working artefacts: Ethnomethods of the prototype. British Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 163–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svinhufvud, K., & Vehviläinen, S. (2013). Papers, documents, and the opening of an academic supervision encounter. Text & Talk, 33(1), 139–166.Google Scholar
Tambornino, J. (2002). The corporeal turn: Passion, necessity, politics. Maryland, Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Thomasson, A.L. (2007). Ordinary objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turkle, S. (Ed.). (2007). Evocative objects: Things we think with. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Verbeek, P-P. (2006). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Velmans, M. (2009). Understanding consciousness. 2nd edition. Sussex: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wetzel, L. (2009). Types and tokens: On abstract objects. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, A.J. (1994). Object transfer, intersubjectivity and third position repair: Early developmental observations of one child. Journal of Child Language, 21(3), 543–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, J. & Ogiermann, E. (2013). Responsibility and action: Invariants and diversity in requests for objects in British English and Polish interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(3), 256–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Nissi, Riikka & Esa Lehtinen
2024. Perceiving the organisation through a coding scheme. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:3 ► pp. 422 ff. DOI logo
Larkin, Kevin & Thomas Lowrie
2022. A Way Forward for STEM in the Early Years. In STEM Education in the Early Years, ► pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
Lehtinen, Esa & Pekka Pälli
2021. On the participatory agency of texts: Using institutional forms in performance appraisal interviews. Text & Talk 41:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Mathieu, Corinne S., Nausica Marcos Miguel & Teppo Jakonen
2021. Introduction: classroom discourse at the intersection of language education and materiality. Classroom Discourse 12:1-2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
de Boer, Bas, Hedwig te Molder & Peter-Paul Verbeek
2020. Constituting ‘Visual Attention’: On the Mediating Role of Brain Stimulation and Brain Imaging Technologies in Neuroscientific Practice. Science as Culture 29:4 ► pp. 503 ff. DOI logo
Due, Brian L., Dirk Vom Lehn, Helena Webb, Christian Heath & Johan Trærup
2020. Servicing the body: placing glasses on the client’s head at the opticians. Visual Studies 35:2-3 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Mondada, Lorenza, Julia Bänninger, Sofian A Bouaouina, Guillaume Gauthier, Philipp Hänggi, Mizuki Koda, Hanna Svensson & Burak S Tekin
2020. Doing paying during the Covid-19 pandemic. Discourse Studies 22:6 ► pp. 720 ff. DOI logo
Isaac, Adrienne R. & Heidi E. Hamilton
2019. Agency and epistemic authority in question-answer sequences between art museum guides and visitors diagnosed with dementia. Linguistics Vanguard 5:s2 DOI logo
Heller, Vivien
2016. Meanings at hand: Coordinating semiotic resources in explaining mathematical terms in classroom discourse. Classroom Discourse 7:3 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Raclaw, Joshua, Jessica S. Robles & Stephen M. DiDomenico
2016. Providing Epistemic Support for Assessments Through Mobile-Supported Sharing Activities. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49:4 ► pp. 362 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 december 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.