Cover not available
Part of
Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond multitasking
Edited by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada and Maurice Nevile
[Not in series 187] 2014
► pp. 137–166

Negotiating favourable conditions for resuming suspended activities

This paper examines how participants in multiactivity situations are able to resume an ongoing activity that becomes temporarily suspended in favour of a locally emergent, competing line of action. Detailed analyses of video data from English and Finnish everyday interactions show that resumptions are not achieved unproblematically at the first suitable transition-relevant slot but involve a gradual, stepwise process of multimodal negotiations, where participants first collaboratively establish favourable conditions for resumption. It is argued that these negotiations represent a local instance of multiactivity in practice, i.e. where organising multiactivity becomes a demonstrable concern for the participants. The gradualness of resumptions provides participants with an interactional resource that can be exploited to flexibly manage activity transitions in complex multiactivity situations.

Published online: 4 September 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.05sut
References
Auer, P
(2005) Delayed self-repairs as a structuring device for complex turns in conversation. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 75–102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beach, W.A
(1995a) Conversation analysis: “Okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In S.J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communication (pp. 121–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1995b) Preserving and constraining options: “Okays” and “official” priorities in medical interviews. In B. Morris, & R. Chenail (Eds.), Talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp. 259–290). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bolden, G
(2006) Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker “so” to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L
(2010) Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1700–1718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drew, P
(2005) Conversation analysis. In K.L. Fitch, & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 71–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D
(1993) An outline of discourse transcription. In J.A. Edwards, & M.D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Duvallon, O., & Routarinne, S
(2005) Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, C.E., Thompson, S.A., & Drake, V
(2012) Bodily-visual practices and turn continuation. Discourse Processes, 49, 192–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E
(1963) Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C
(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 M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62, 29–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H
(1992a) Context, activity and participation. In P. Auer, & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 77–99). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992b) Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J
(1990) Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddington, P., & Kääntä, L
(Eds.) (2012) Kieli, keho ja vuorovaikutus. Multimodaalinen näkökulma sosiaaliseen toimintaan [Language, body and interaction: A multimodal perspective into social action]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.Google Scholar
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, M., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R., & Alho, I
(2004) Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Available at: [URL] URN:ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7 (referenced 22th May 2012)Google Scholar
Heinonen, M
(2002) Ni(in), ni tota ja tota ni paluun merkkeinä puhelinkeskustelussa. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G
(1972) Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
(1978) Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle 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), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LeBaron, C. & Jones, S.E
(2002) Closing up closings: Showing the relevance of the social and material surround to the completion of interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 542–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Local, J
(2004) Getting back to prior talk: and-uh(m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & C.E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 377–400). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H
(2007) Parenthetical sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1816–1869. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M
(2001) Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Modaff, D.P
(2003) Body movement in the transition from opening to task in doctor-patient interviews. In P. Glenn, C.D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 411–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mondada, L
(2006) Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 117–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9, 194–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls [88 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), Art. 39. Retrieved Feb 28, 2014from [URL].Google Scholar
(2011) The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction. Language and body in the material world (pp. 207–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2012) Talking and driving: Multiactivity in the car. Semiotica, 191, 223–256.Google Scholar
Nevile, M
(2012) Interaction as distraction in driving: A body of evidence. Semiotica, 191, 169–196.Google Scholar
Park, I
(2010) Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3283–3299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rauniomaa, M
(2008) Recovery through repetition: Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. (Doctoral dissertation). Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: Oulu University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J.D. & Stivers, T
(2001) Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient encounters: From history-taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 253–298.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E.A
(1998) Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 535–596.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L
(2001) Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T. & Sidnell, J
(2005) Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156(1/4), 1–20. 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
Sutinen, M
(2008) But and anyway resumptions as a strategy for managing digressions in conversational storytelling and other extended turns. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Swerts, M
(1998) Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 485–496. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szymanski, M.H
(1999) Re-engaging and dis-engaging talk in activity. Language in Society, 28, 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toerien, M. & Kitzinger, C.
(2007) Emotional labour in action: Navigating multiple involvements in the beauty salon. Sociology, 41(4), 645–662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, J
(2000) Repetition in conversation: a look at “first and second sayings”. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33, 407–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 11 other publications

DeLand, Michael F.
2021. Men and Their Moments: Character-Driven Ethnography and Interaction Analysis in a Park Basketball Rule Dispute. Social Psychology Quarterly 84:2 ► pp. 155 ff. DOI logo
Helisten, Marika
2019. Disjunctively Positioned Problem-Noticings in Managing Multiactivity. Research on Language and Social Interaction 52:4 ► pp. 318 ff. DOI logo
Hoffmann, Sabine & Giolo Fele
2023. Dealing with missing participants in the opening phases of a videoconference. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Hofstetter, Emily
2021. Achieving Preallocation: Turn Transition Practices in Board Games. Discourse Processes 58:2 ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo
Hofstetter, Emily & Jessica Robles
2023. Metagaming and Multiactivity: How Board Game Players Deal with Progressivity. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Kim, Kyoungmi & Jo Angouri
2019. ‘We don’t need to abide by that!’: Negotiating professional roles in problem-solving talk at work. Discourse & Communication 13:2 ► pp. 172 ff. DOI logo
Pelikan, Hannah & Emily Hofstetter
2023. Managing Delays in Human-Robot Interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30:4 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Rautiainen, Iira, Pentti Haddington & Antti Kamunen
2023. Nudging Questions as Devices for Prompting Courses of Action and Negotiating Deontic (A)symmetry in UN Military Observer Training. In Complexity of Interaction, ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Siitonen, Pauliina, Marika Helisten, Maarit Siromaa, Mirka Rauniomaa & Mari Holmström
2022. Managing co-presence with a wave of the hand. Gesture 21:1 ► pp. 82 ff. DOI logo
Vatanen, Anna & Pentti Haddington
2023. Multiactivity in adult-child interaction: accounts resolving conflicting courses of action in request sequences. Text & Talk 43:2 ► pp. 263 ff. DOI logo
Yagi, Junichi
2024. “Five” or “ten”: analysing a co-operative correction in Muay Thai coaching. Sports Coaching Review 13:1 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

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