2.1Embodiment in ‘face-to-face’ interaction

Despite being a continuous matter in conversation analysis since the seventies, it is only within the last twenty years that a substantial ‘holistic turn’ in different lines of research focusing on interaction can be observed. We are particularly interested in three fields of inquiry: conversation analysis, interactional linguistics, and gesture studies. Recently, these fields of research have started to influence one another, and they are all following the paradigm of embodiment,22.See also Mondada (2019)Mondada, Lorenza 2019 “Contemporary Issues in Conversation Analysis: Embodiment and Materiality, Multimodality and Multisensoriality in Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 47–62. Mondada, Lorenza 2019 “Contemporary Issues in Conversation Analysis: Embodiment and Materiality, Multimodality and Multisensoriality in Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 1451: 47–62. , who refers to this turn as ‘corporeal’, ‘intercorporeal’, ‘carnal’, or ‘embodied’. with a growing emphasis on multimodal talk-in-interaction (Deppermann 2013Deppermann, Arnulf 2013 “Multimodal Interaction from a Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 1–7. Deppermann, Arnulf 2013 “Multimodal Interaction from a Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 1–7. ; Müller et al. 2013Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill, and Silvana Teßendorf (eds) 2013 Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Volume 1. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill, and Silvana Teßendorf (eds) 2013 Body – Language – Communication: An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction. Volume 1. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. ; Nevile 2015Nevile, Maurice 2015 “The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (2): 121–151. Nevile, Maurice 2015 “The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48 (2): 121–151. ; Schröder 2017Schröder, Ulrike 2017 “Multimodal Metaphors as Cognitive Pivots for the Construction of Cultural Otherness in Talk.” Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (4): 493–524. Schröder, Ulrike 2017 “Multimodal Metaphors as Cognitive Pivots for the Construction of Cultural Otherness in Talk.” Intercultural Pragmatics 14 (4): 493–524. , 2020Schröder, Ulrike 2020 “Talking about Intercultural Experiences.” International Journal of Language and Culture 7 (1): 15–37. Schröder, Ulrike 2020 “Talking about Intercultural Experiences.” International Journal of Language and Culture 7 (1): 15–37. ; Schröder and Streeck 2022Schröder, Ulrike, and Jürgen Streeck 2022 “Cultural Concept, Movement, and Way of Life: Jeitinho in Words and Gestures.” Intercultural Pragmatics 19 (4): 427–457. Schröder, Ulrike, and Jürgen Streeck 2022 “Cultural Concept, Movement, and Way of Life: Jeitinho in Words and Gestures.” Intercultural Pragmatics 19 (4): 427–457. ). Concepts that primarily deal with the ‘inter’ of action and originate in conversation analysis such as ‘alignment’, ‘affiliation’ or ‘mutual monitoring’, to name just a few, have more and more paid attention to the relevance of the material environment, embodied activities, as well as environmentally coupled gestures. Through the multimodal prism, social interaction is therefore increasingly conceived as “collectively organized by the co-participants, in a locally situated way, achieved incrementally through its temporal and sequential unfolding, by mobilizing a large range of vocal, verbal, visual and embodied resources, which are publicly displayed and monitored in situ” (Mondada 2013Mondada, Lorenza 2013 “Conversation Analysis: Talk and Bodily Resources for the Organization of Social Interaction.” In Body – Language – Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill, and Silvana Teßendorf, 218–227. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Mondada, Lorenza 2013 “Conversation Analysis: Talk and Bodily Resources for the Organization of Social Interaction.” In Body – Language – Communication. An International Handbook on Multimodality in Human Interaction, ed. by Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill, and Silvana Teßendorf, 218–227. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. , 33; see also Goodwin 2000Goodwin, Charles 2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. Goodwin, Charles 2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 321: 1489–1522. , 2007Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse and Society 18 (1): 53–73. Goodwin, Charles 2007 “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse and Society 18 (1): 53–73. ; Deppermann 2013Deppermann, Arnulf 2013 “Multimodal Interaction from a Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 1–7. Deppermann, Arnulf 2013 “Multimodal Interaction from a Conversation Analytic Perspective.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 1–7. ; Deppermann, Mondada and Doehler 2021Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada, and Simona Pekarek Doehler 2021 “Early Responses: An Introduction.” Discourse Processes 58 (4): 293–307. Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada, and Simona Pekarek Doehler 2021 “Early Responses: An Introduction.” Discourse Processes 58 (4): 293–307. ). Even more than CA, interactional linguistics has paved the way for the integration of prosody as providing a resource for constructing and organizing shared experience, emotion, and stance thus becoming a locus of embodied habitus within the dialogic framework. Researchers from this field of inquiry have paid a lot of attention to the systematic integration of prosodic means in the linguistic analysis of talk in interaction such as hesitation particles, sound stretching, cut-offs, in-breaths, laughter, pausing, stress and intonation, and what role these play in discourse, as well as for for conversational management, sequencing and framing (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 1996Couper-Kuhlen, Eizabeth, and Margret Selting (eds.) 1996 Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Couper-Kuhlen, Eizabeth, and Margret Selting (eds.) 1996 Prosody in Conversation: Interactional Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ; Selting and Couper-Kuhlen 2001Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Selting, Margret, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen 2001 Studies in Interactional Linguistics. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. ; Hakulinen and Selting 2005Hakulinen, Auli, and Margret Selting 2005 Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://​benjamins​.com​/catalog​/sidag​.17. Hakulinen, Auli, and Margret Selting 2005 Syntax and Lexis in Conversation: Studies on the Use of Linguistic Resources in Talk-in-Interaction. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://​benjamins​.com​/catalog​/sidag​.17. ; Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.).

Since the very beginning, gesture studies have pointed to the integration of language and gesture and have more and more moved away from a mere cognitive conceptualization of gesture as representation of thought. Gestures should rather be conceived as “a way of cognitively existing, of cognitively being, at the moment of speaking” (McNeill 2005McNeill, David 2005 Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McNeill, David 2005 Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. , 99). Researchers like Jürgen Streeck (2017)Streeck, Jürgen 2017 Self-Making Man: A Day of Action, Life, and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Streeck, Jürgen 2017 Self-Making Man: A Day of Action, Life, and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. aim to build a bridge between gesture studies and conversation analysis by arguing for an interactional, ethnographical and praxeological perspective on gesture, emphasizing the role of gesture in embodied interaction and the organization of interactional trajectories. In contrast to the predominant individual-pragmatic view that is still prevalent in McNeill’s (1992McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., 2005McNeill, David 2005 Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McNeill, David 2005 Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ) approach, Meyer, Streeck and Jordan (2017)Meyer, Christian, Jürgen Streeck, and Jordan Scott (eds.) 2017 Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. Meyer, Christian, Jürgen Streeck, and Jordan Scott (eds.) 2017 Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. look at the animate, spontaneous, and creative character of interaction, as well as the way speech and gesture are both related to sedimentation and creativity (Cuffari and Streeck 2017Cuffari, Elena, and Jürgen Streeck 2017 “Taking the World by Hand: How (Some) Gestures Mean.” In Incorporeality. Emerging Socialities in Interaction, ed. by Christian Meyer, Jürgen Streeck, and Jordan Scott, 173–201. New York: Oxford University Press.Cuffari, Elena, and Jürgen Streeck 2017 “Taking the World by Hand: How (Some) Gestures Mean.” In Incorporeality. Emerging Socialities in Interaction, ed. by Christian Meyer, Jürgen Streeck, and Jordan Scott, 173–201. New York: Oxford University Press.). While gestures such as pointing serve functions within activities of shared cognition and are typically co-orchestrated with spoken deictic expressions, iconic gestures depict or reenact. Likewise, metaphorical gestures construe bodily action and experience. Here, gestures are conceived as an abstracted, yet fully embodied mode of physical action. That is to say, sedimented gestures are shared embodied thinking tools and making them is a form of public thinking. A special case of sedimented gestures are pragmatic gestures, frequently also called ‘performative’, ‘discursive’ or ‘recurrent’ gestures. They have been discussed by Kendon (2004)Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. as having a meta-communicative function such as marking exactness, denial/negation, withdrawal from action/non-intervention, and so on, with regard to something that has been said. Take for example gestures made with open hands facing and pushing downwards or brushing away: they share the semantic idea of interrupting the turn of the interlocutor or moving away something the speaker herself has said (Streeck 2017Streeck, Jürgen 2017 Self-Making Man: A Day of Action, Life, and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Streeck, Jürgen 2017 Self-Making Man: A Day of Action, Life, and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 2019Streeck, Jürgen 2019 “Gesture Research.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, p. 3–30. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Streeck, Jürgen 2019 “Gesture Research.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, p. 3–30. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.).

Recently, an increasing number of studies aim to overcome the boundaries between these three areas of research and bring together the previously separately studied resources of interaction. Although sometimes an extracommunicative33.The distinction between communicative and extracommunicative perspectives has been introduced by Gerold Ungeheuer (2004)Ungeheuer, Gerold 2004 “Kommunikative und extrakommunikative Betrachtungsweisen in der Phonetik.” In Sprache und Kommunikation, ed. by Karin Kolb, and H. Walter Schmitz, 22–34. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Ungeheuer, Gerold 2004 “Kommunikative und extrakommunikative Betrachtungsweisen in der Phonetik.” In Sprache und Kommunikation, ed. by Karin Kolb, and H. Walter Schmitz, 22–34. Münster: Nodus Publikationen. who assumes that every human being experiences communication twice: (1) as a communicator, employing communicative acts to achieve reciprocal understanding, and (2) as a (self-)reflexive observer, categorizing and analyzing the means of communication from an external point of view. This dichotomy has significant methodological implications for any investigation on human interaction conducted by a researcher or an external observer. point of view is necessary for analyzing the different modes of interaction as phenomena of co-occurrence in order to make them manageable for the researcher, we should be aware that from the communicative perspective of the participants themselves, they form one holistic gestalt (see also Mondada 2019Mondada, Lorenza 2019 “Contemporary Issues in Conversation Analysis: Embodiment and Materiality, Multimodality and Multisensoriality in Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 145: 47–62. Mondada, Lorenza 2019 “Contemporary Issues in Conversation Analysis: Embodiment and Materiality, Multimodality and Multisensoriality in Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 1451: 47–62. ). In the following section, we will examine the studies that have already uncovered significant changes in interaction patterns and emerging structures during the pandemic.

2.2Interactional practices in pandemic times

The first studies conducted in the field of talk-in-interaction since the outbreak of the pandemic in Februrary of 2020 mainly deal with the consequential new intercorporeal and communicative reality emerging from social distancing, the use of face masks and the drawing of bounded public space. Katila, Gan and Goodwin (2020)Katila, Julia, Yumei Gan, and Marjorie H. Goodwin 2020 “Interaction Rituals and ‘Social Distancing’: New Haptic Trajectories and Touching from a Distance in the Time of COVID-19”. Discourse Studies 22 (4): 418–440. Katila, Julia, Yumei Gan, and Marjorie H. Goodwin 2020 “Interaction Rituals and ‘Social Distancing’: New Haptic Trajectories and Touching from a Distance in the Time of COVID-19”. Discourse Studies 22 (4): 418–440. investigate divergent novel practices and embodied choreographies in the elaboration of interaction rituals in the time of coronavirus that, according to the authors, are creatively designed to respond to restrictions and orders ranging from daily encounters to official meetings between politicians. These encounters include ways of how the interactants repair or decline former ways of touching or even apologize for doing so, and the authors describe step-by-step negotiations concerning relationship rituals between politicians and their co-present parties in the shared intercorporeal space. Interestingly, it is also observed that in the most face-threatening moments, when a violation occurred, reconciliation seems to take priority over the physical distancing rules. In a similar vein but much more along a synchronic line, Mondada et al. (2020b)Mondada, Lorenza, Julia Bänninger, Sofian A. Bouaouina, Guillaume Gauthier, Philipp Hänggi, Mizuki Koda, Hanna Svensson, and Burak S. Tekin 2020a “Doing Paying during the Covid-19 Pandemic.” Discourse Studies 22 (6): 720–752. Mondada, Lorenza, Julia Bänninger, Sofian A. Bouaouina, Guillaume Gauthier, Philipp Hänggi, Mizuki Koda, Hanna Svensson, and Burak S. Tekin 2020a “Doing Paying during the Covid-19 Pandemic.” Discourse Studies 22 (6): 720–752. have aimed at documenting the emerging pandemic manifestations in social interacion as well as the changes these involve. A study of this research group has revealed the way tactile embodied greetings have changed from routine greetings to hesitated but still completed ones and finally to projected but refused patterns along with the emergence of new practices such as elbow and feetbumps or hugs-in-the-air. In another study, the research group (Mondada et al. 2020aMondada, Lorenza, Julia Bänninger, Sofian A. Bouaouina, Laurent Camus, Guillaume Gauthier, Philipp Hänggi, Mizuki Koda, Hanna Svensson, and Burak S. Tekin 2020b “Human Sociality in the Times of the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Examination of Change in Greetings.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 24 (4): 441–468. Mondada, Lorenza, Julia Bänninger, Sofian A. Bouaouina, Laurent Camus, Guillaume Gauthier, Philipp Hänggi, Mizuki Koda, Hanna Svensson, and Burak S. Tekin 2020b “Human Sociality in the Times of the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Examination of Change in Greetings.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 24 (4): 441–468. ) focuses on the reorganization of the social activity of paying in shops and services by analysing the emerging practices of sellers and customers who are now forced to integrate prevention readjustments and to orient towards the choice of payment mode, new forms of payment procedures and imperatives of keeping distance. Rather related to talk itself as well as moral expectations, the culture of the pandemic implied by discourse is studied by Ekberg et al. (2021)Ekberg, Katie, Stuart Ekberg, Lara Weinglass, and Susan Danby 2021 “Pandemic Morality-in-Action: Accounting for Social Action during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Discourse and Society 32 (6): 666–688. Ekberg, Katie, Stuart Ekberg, Lara Weinglass, and Susan Danby 2021 “Pandemic Morality-in-Action: Accounting for Social Action during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Discourse and Society 32 (6): 666–688. . The authors reveal how pandemic culture and the accompanying moral order were produced within and through interaction in paediatric palliative care consultations during the first and second waves of Covid-19 in Australia.

Besides these multimodally oriented approaches in the field of conversation analysis there are in particular cognitively and medically oriented studies that deal precisely with the effect of face masks on communication and present results from current studies. Although these studies do not fall in the scope of an interactional approach, we would still like to briefly examine these results. They provide valuable insights into the material context and circumstances that need to be considered from both a communicative and extracommunicative perspective. This will be especially relevant when analyzing the retrospective interviews. Mheidly et al. (2020)Mheidly, Nour, Mohamad Y. Fares, Hussein Zalzale, and Jawad Fares 2020 “Effect of Face Masks on Interpersonal Communication during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Frontiers in Public Health 1–6. Mheidly, Nour, Mohamad Y. Fares, Hussein Zalzale, and Jawad Fares 2020 “Effect of Face Masks on Interpersonal Communication during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Frontiers in Public Health 1–6. , e.g., point to the fact that important emblematic gestures such as the ‘chin raiser’, the ‘lip stretcher’, the ‘lip tightener’, ‘the lips part’, or the ‘jaw drop’, each being associated with a set of facial muscles that convey a specific emotion, cannot be identified any longer when an individual wears a face mask. As an example, they point to the ‘chin raiser’, whereby the chin and the lower lip are pushed upward, as well as the ‘lip tightener’ by which the lips appear narrower; in both cases, anger is conveyed. Now, if the lower and middle part of the face are covered, emotional perception descreases and the role of the upper face in emotional expression increases in significance. In a similar vein, Calbi et al. (2021)Calbi, Marta, Nunzio Langiulli, Francesca Ferroni, Martina Montalti, Anna Kolesnikov, Vittorio Gallese, and Maria Alessandra Umiltà 2021 “The Consequences of COVID-19 on Social Interactions: An Online Study on Face Covering.” Scientific Reports 11 (1): 1–10. Calbi, Marta, Nunzio Langiulli, Francesca Ferroni, Martina Montalti, Anna Kolesnikov, Vittorio Gallese, and Maria Alessandra Umiltà 2021 “The Consequences of COVID-19 on Social Interactions: An Online Study on Face Covering.” Scientific Reports 11 (1): 1–10. highlight that eyes and mouth are particularly relevant for emotional facial expressions. When only the upper part of the face is visible (the eyes), participants perceive and recognize negative emotions better than positive ones. In fact, face masks do not only cover about 60% to 70% of the face, they also have an impact on voice. The study Giovanelli et al. (2021)Giovanelli, Elena, Chiara Valzolgher, Elena Gessa, Michela Todeschini, and Francesco Pavani 2021 “Unmasking the Difficulty of Listening to Talkers with Masks: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” i-Perception 12 (2): 1–11. Giovanelli, Elena, Chiara Valzolgher, Elena Gessa, Michela Todeschini, and Francesco Pavani 2021 “Unmasking the Difficulty of Listening to Talkers with Masks: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic.” i-Perception 12 (2): 1–11. conducted reveals that wearing a face mask reduces meta-cognitive monitoring abilities, that is to say, it leads to lower performance from the speaker and likewise to lower listening confidence.

A preliminary pilot study was conducted by our research group, ICMI,44.Intercultural Communication in Multimodal Interaction. to investigate how people are adapting their everyday interactions during the pandemic, specifically with regards to face masks and social distancing. This pilot study was based on data from various countries collected from YouTube videos. The study showed that eyebrow raise plays a major role as an additional pitch accent marker, that gesture space is enlarged and markably used by more beat gestures when social distancing and the use of face masks are in play, as well as that intonational cues may be displayed to a higher degree in order to compensate for the loss of facial gestures and the loss of verbal means (Schröder et al., submittedSchröder, Ulrike, Anna Ladilova, Sineide Gonçalves, and Fernanda Roque Amendoreira submitted. “Perspectivas multimodais sobre a comunicação com máscaras faciais em tempos de COVID-19.”Schröder, Ulrike, Anna Ladilova, Sineide Gonçalves, and Fernanda Roque Amendoreira submitted. “Perspectivas multimodais sobre a comunicação com máscaras faciais em tempos de COVID-19.”). The present paper can be seen as a consolidation of this pilot study. In the following, the methodological steps are presented.

4.1Emergent interaction patterns at a Covid-19 travel checkpoint

Travel checkpoints in order to control the flux of traffic at the city entrance of Brazilian cities were implemented from March 2020 onwards as part of a series of containment measures regarding Covid-19. One checkpoint was located at Ouro Branco and monitored by three health agents and two traffic agents who measured the temperature of the incoming vehicle drivers. In case of measuring over 37.8ºC, the passengers had to leave the vehicle and were accompanied to a health station while the vehicle was desinfected. Additionally, the agents also handed in hand sanitizer, as well as face masks to the passengers as precaution measure. Figures 1a and 1b show health and traffic agents at the north entrance of the county.

In the following, we will present four short sequences from checkpoint interactions and discuss how recurrent interaction patterns emerge in the context of the multimodal coordination of the involved participants considering the the use of face masks, the maintanance of social distance, as well as the surrounding noise.

In all four sequences, we can observe similar patterns that constitute a format or script of interaction that might be labelled ‘checkpoint control’ due to the Covid-19 pandemic, situated here in a mid-sized Brazilian city in the upcountry of Minas Gerais, although the three healthcare workers vary this format to a certain degree. This is to say, there are rules of conduct and associated adjacency pairs emerge based on previous institutionalized scripts; the participants elaborate and reinforce their moves in the flow of interaction in situ and ad hoc by considering the details of turns-at-talk (Enfield and Sidnell 2017Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell 2017 “On the Concept of Action in the Study of Interaction.” Discourse Studies 19 (5): 515–535. Enfield, Nick J., and Jack Sidnell 2017 “On the Concept of Action in the Study of Interaction.” Discourse Studies 19 (5): 515–535. ). How meaning construction is built as a blending of further routines and new ingredients, how they resemble one another but also differ in detail becomes quite visible in these short excerpts.

01   A3:   vindo de ↑↑!ON!de;=
           where are you coming from
02   D1:   =crisTIAno otoni ((closes his eyes, raises his eyebrows and
           moves his head backwards))
03   A3:   ˋFE:bre;
            fever
04         TOˋsse;
           cough
05         gar↑ˋGANta;=
           throat
06   D1:   [<<closes his eyes and nods> =não tô tranquilo-> ]
                                         no I’m fine
07   A3:   [=<<l> algum> sintOma gri↑ˋPAL->                 ]
                  any sign of flu
08   D1:   <<nods> tudo tranquilo->
                   everything fine
09   A3:   contato com algum sus↑PEI:to-
           contact with any suspect
10   D1:   <<nodding> tambÉm NÃO.>
                       also no
11   A3:   ↑pOsso olhar <<raising her left arm with the thermometer> a
           tempera[ˊTUra;>           ]
           may I take your temperature
12   D1:          [<<nodding> CLAro.>]
                       sure
13         ((nods))
14   A3:   ((measures the temperature, 1.7))↑cerTIM obriˋgAda;
                                             okay thanks

Although the first lines of Sequence 1, the greeting, are cut off, we can clearly identify the core pattern of the format that has been developed for this new brief interaction at the checkpoint. The health agent asks for the driver’s origin, receives an answer and then proceeds with a typical follow up question that is made up by a ‘list construction’ (Selting 2007Selting, Margret 2007 “Lists as Embedded Structures and the Prosody of List Construction as an Interactional Resource.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 483–526. Selting, Margret 2007 “Lists as Embedded Structures and the Prosody of List Construction as an Interactional Resource.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 483–526. ), characterized by the identical prosody of the lexical items that are listed in question format (fever, cough, throat), namely, accent on the penultimate syllable, as well as falling intonation (Sequence 1, L03–07; Sequence 2, L08–11). The falling intonation indicates a routinzed ‘run-through likeness’ stylization. The same happens in Sequence 2 in which we additionally find the first adjacency pair, the greeting, too. It is also striking that the driver’s mobility seems to be kept to a minimum. The man nods in three turns (L06, 08, 10) while giving a negative answer to the routinized questions of the health agent. To our understanding, this nodding could be interpreted as a generalized affirmation of the health agent’s routine on a higher level, such as a generic ‘everything okay’.

01         (2.0)
02   A3:   boa ↑TAR:de;
           good afternoon
03         (-)
04   A3:   [tá vindo de ↑ˋ!ON!de.=]
            where are you coming from
05   D2:   [((looks downwards))   ] lafaiEte;
06         ((looks at A3))
07   A3:   é::;
           yeah
08         ˋFE:bre;
           fever
09   TO:   ˋsse;
           cough
10         gar↑ˋGANta;
           throat
11         algum sintOma;
           any symptoms
12   D2:   ((looks at A3, shakes her head and then looks downwards))
13   A3:   griˊPAL,
           of flu
14         con↑TAto com algum susˊPEI:[to,                                ]
           contact with any suspect
15   D2:                              [((looks at A3 and shakes her head))]
16   A3:   ((shakes her head))↑pOsso
           [olhar <<raising her right arm> a sua tempera ]ˆTUra;>
            may I take your temperature
17   D2:   [((nods))                                     ]
18   A3:   ((measures the temperature, 2.5))↑CERˋtim (.) muiTO obriˋgAda.
                                             okay        thanks a lot

It is worth noting that apart from the beginning, the driver in this sequence only says one word, that is, where she is coming from (L05). Afterwards, she exclusively communicates via facial gestures. This could have to do with the fact that she is being videotaped but may also, in addition to the few movements she makes, be seen as an effect of the pandemic situation in which a lot of people have become insecure regarding their contact and communicative openness towards others due to the risk of infection.

In the next sequence, we see another health agent.

01         (0.9)
02   A2:   bom dIa tudo <<cres> ↑↑BEM?>
           good morning how are you
03         (--)
04   A2:   tá ↑VINdo de ˊONde pra ˋonde.
           where are you coming from and where are you going to
05   D3:   lafaiEte ouro branco;
06         (-)
07   A2:   ouro ↑BRANco;
08         (-)
09   A2:   cê mora a↑QUI,
           do you live here
10         (-)
11   D3:   <<looking at A2, pointing with her head at the left> moro em
           lafaiEte mas trabalho aQUI;>
           I live in Lafaiete but I work here
12   A2:   [↑↑tá;    ]
              okay
13   D3:   [só ir lá.]
            I just go there
14         ((D3 moves her head a bit forward, A2 measures the temperature))
15   A2:   oQUÊI.
           okay

Although the questions about the symptoms are missing in this sequence, the beginning has a similar format to that displayed by the health agent in Sequences 1 and 2. Notably, the driver here does not respond verbally but instead points with her head to the place where she lives (Lafaiete, L11) in order to emphasize the difference between the two places. This might have to do with the face masks and social distancing being perceived as obstacles, in addition to the noisy surroundings. Retrospective interviews conducted with the health workers pointed to this problem, particularly when they were stationed at the checkpoints.

How deictic gestures (McNeill 1992McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.McNeill, David 1992 Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.; Kendon 2004Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kendon, Adam 2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ) compensate for information that can get lost due to the communication with face masks situated in a very noisy environment can be seen par excellence in Sequence 4 where a misunderstanding occurs: When the health agent asks where the driver is coming from, she answers that she is coming from Ouro Branco. The health agent understands that she is working in Ouro Branco, but, actually, the woman lives in Ouro Branco while always driving to work in Lafaiete. By saying this, she is pointing to Lafaiete, and then the health agent is first misinterpreting the situation pointing in the same direction while saying that the woman is from there. Immediately, she then initiates a self-repair with cut-off (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2018Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting 2018 Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 118) and is now pointing with her left thumb to the left and correcting what she said by asserting that the woman is in fact from here (see Figures 3a–b).

01         (2.2)
02   A4:   <<h> bOa TARde;>
                good afternoon
03         ↑SALvo enˋGAno;=
           if I’m not mistaken
04         =tá vindo de ↑ONde,
            where are you coming from
05   D4:   <<looking at A4, len> lafaiEte;>
07   A4:   então tá vindo pra ouro ↑BRAN:co-
           so you’re coming to Ouro Branco
08   D4:   <<f> ↑NÃ:O;>
                 no
09         (.) é porque eu MO:ro aqui;=
               it’s cause I live here
10         =eu sempre vou <<pointing backwards in a semicircular movement
           with her right hand> LÁ;>
            I always go there
11   A4:   há <pointing with her left thumb to the right> cê é de LÁ me;=
           is it that you are from there
12         =<<acc, pointing with her left thumb to the left> é cê é daQUI
           mesmo:;>
           is it that you are actually from here
13   A4:   sou daqQUI;
           I’m from here
14   A4:   <<raising her hand with the thermometer> é ↑SÓ vê> <<acc> a
           temperatUra;>
           it’s just to take your temperature
15   D4:   ((moves her head forward))
16   A4:   ((measures the temperature)) oˊQUÊI obriGAda;
                                        okay thanks

09   D4:   (.) é porque eu MO:ro
           aqui;=
           it’s cause I live here
10         =eu sempre vou
           <<pointing backwards
           in a semicircular
           movement with her right
           hand> LÁ;>
                 I always go there

11   A4:   há <pointing with her
           left thumb to the
           right> cê é de LÁ me;=
           is it that you are from there
12         =<<acc, pointing with
           her left thumb to the
           left> é cê é daQUI
           mesmo:;>
           is it that you are actually from here
13   A4:   sou daqQUI;
           I’m from here

To our understanding, what is most striking in all four sequences here is the importance of prosody in this emergent format ‘checkpoint control’: Apart from the first sequence (where this turn is probably cut), all sequences start with a greeting and a following turn by which a question is addressed to the driver of the car asking about where he or she is coming from. In all four cases, this new and uncommon intrusion into the private territory of the drivers who could normally enter the city without any impediment seems to be mitigated by prosodic means, on the one hand, by high pitch, and on the other hand, also by varying pitch contours that are frequently associated with a melodic feature.1111.Cf. for high pitch as being related to politeness Ofuka et al. (2000)Ofuka, Etsuko, J. Denis McKeown, Mitch G. Waterman, and Peter J. Roach 2000 “Prosodic Cues for Rated Politeness in Japanese Speech.” Speech Communication 32 (3): 199–217. Ofuka, Etsuko, J. Denis McKeown, Mitch G. Waterman, and Peter J. Roach 2000 “Prosodic Cues for Rated Politeness in Japanese Speech.” Speech Communication 32 (3): 199–217. , Ohara (2001)Ohara, Yumiko 2001 “Finding One’s Voice in Japanese: A Study of the Pitch Levels of L2 Users.” In Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender, ed. by Aneta Pavlenko, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller, and Marya Teutsch-Dwyer, 231–256. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Ohara, Yumiko 2001 “Finding One’s Voice in Japanese: A Study of the Pitch Levels of L2 Users.” In Multilingualism, Second Language Learning, and Gender, ed. by Aneta Pavlenko, Adrian Blackledge, Ingrid Piller, and Marya Teutsch-Dwyer, 231–256. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. , as well as LaPlante and Ambady (2003)Laplante, Debi, and Nalini Ambady 2003 “On How Things Are Said: Voice Tone, Voice Intensity, Verbal Content, and Perceptions of Politeness.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22 (4): 434–441. Laplante, Debi, and Nalini Ambady 2003 “On How Things Are Said: Voice Tone, Voice Intensity, Verbal Content, and Perceptions of Politeness.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 22 (4): 434–441. . Cf. for strong intonational movement in Brazilian Portuguese and its mitigating effect Schröder and Carneiro Mendes (2019)Schröder, Ulrike, and Mariana Carneiro Mendes 2019 “Unterschiede im Gebrauch und in der Funktion prosodischer Merkmale im deutschen und brasilianischen Sprechen im Kontext des Transkribierens.” In Sprachgebrauch im Kontext. Die deutsche Sprache im Kontakt, Vergleich und in Interaktion mit Lateinamerika/Brasilien, ed. by Thomas Johnen, Mônica Savedra, and Ulrike Schröder, 145–172. Stuttgart: ibidem. Schröder, Ulrike, and Mariana Carneiro Mendes 2019 “Unterschiede im Gebrauch und in der Funktion prosodischer Merkmale im deutschen und brasilianischen Sprechen im Kontext des Transkribierens.” In Sprachgebrauch im Kontext. Die deutsche Sprache im Kontakt, Vergleich und in Interaktion mit Lateinamerika/Brasilien, ed. by Thomas Johnen, Mônica Savedra, and Ulrike Schröder, 145–172. Stuttgart: ibidem. , as well as Frota et al. (2015)Frota, Sonia, Marisa Cruz, Flaviane Svartman, Gisela Collischonn, Aline Fonseca, Carolina Serra, Pedro Oliveira, and Marina Vigário 2015 “Intonational Variation in Portuguese: European and Brazilian Varieties.” In Intonation in Romance, ed. by Sonia Frota, and Pilar Prieto, 235–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frota, Sonia, Marisa Cruz, Flaviane Svartman, Gisela Collischonn, Aline Fonseca, Carolina Serra, Pedro Oliveira, and Marina Vigário 2015 “Intonational Variation in Portuguese: European and Brazilian Varieties.” In Intonation in Romance, ed. by Sonia Frota, and Pilar Prieto, 235–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . A comparison of the four requests shows the similarities regarding the prosodic structure, especially the high pitch, as well as the degree of variety from one health care worker to another shown in Figures 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d:

As the images show, strong emphasis is mostly put on the syllable ON of the interrogative pronoun onde (“where”) that goes along with a pitch jump upward varying between 50 and 600 Hz,1212.According to Vargas, Cielo, and Trevisan (2010Vargas Ferreira, Fernanda Carla Aparecida Cielo, and Maria Elaine Trevisan 2010 “Medidas vocais acústicas na doença de Parkinson: estudo de casos.” Revista CEFAC 12 (5): 889–898.Vargas Ferreira, Fernanda Carla Aparecida Cielo, and Maria Elaine Trevisan 2010 “Medidas vocais acústicas na doença de Parkinson: estudo de casos.” Revista CEFAC 12 (5): 889–898., 891), as well as Russo and Behlau (1993)Russo, Iêda, and Mara Behlau 1993 Percepção da fala: Análise acústica do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Lovise.Russo, Iêda, and Mara Behlau 1993 Percepção da fala: Análise acústica do português brasileiro. São Paulo: Lovise., the default value for adult female speakers of Brazilian Portuguese with regard to pitch jumps upward varies between 150 and 250 Hz, and the intensity between 15 and 45 dB. while the intensity varies between 75 and 80 dB. Therefore, this emphasis has a strong melodic impact on the question’s formulaic character and mitigates significantly its imperative and instrusive character. In addition to that, other aspects may cause these sharp intonational contours such as the principal outdoor setting with its noisy main road and the fact that the participants share different spaces additionally separated by the physical distancing rules, as well as the face masks both interlocutors are wearing, a matter that was confirmed by the health workers in our retrospective interview.

Additionally, the request for taking the temperature is likewise introduced by significant pitch changes, most strikingly by a pitch jump upwards in L11 in Sequence 1 and L16 in Sequence 2 when initiating the request ↑pOsso olhar, and in Sequence 4 even downgraded lexically by só (“just”), whereby it is salient that the health agents usually start raising their arms in order to perform the measuring while still making the request instead of after having received an affirmative response as second pair. The request for permission in this context rather constitutes as second pair granting by nodding and/or moving the head forward which marks the preferred response, in a similar vein as has been revealed by Fox (2015)Fox, Barbara 2015 “On the Notion of Pre-request.” Discourse Studies 17 (1): 41–63. Fox, Barbara 2015 “On the Notion of Pre-request.” Discourse Studies 17 (1): 41–63. for service encounters (L14–15).

In the second part of our analysis, we will focus on two longer sequences that originate from the inside of the local healthcare center, These sequences depict two situations in which appointments are made.

4.2Making an appointment at a local healthcare center

The following two sequences were selected for this paper because they represent, in a highly condensed way, some recurring patterns of interaction with face masks and social distancing when making an appointment in a healthcare center during the first months of the pandemic (Gonçalves 2022Gonçalves, Sineide 2022 Máscaras faciais e distanciamento social: uma análise intercorporeal da fala-em-interação em tempos de COVID-19. PhD dissertation, Federal University of Minas Gerais. https://​repositorio​.ufmg​.br​/handle​/1843​/46706Gonçalves, Sineide 2022 Máscaras faciais e distanciamento social: uma análise intercorporeal da fala-em-interação em tempos de COVID-19. PhD dissertation, Federal University of Minas Gerais. https://​repositorio​.ufmg​.br​/handle​/1843​/46706; Schröder et al., sumittedSchröder, Ulrike, Anna Ladilova, Sineide Gonçalves, and Fernanda Roque Amendoreira submitted. “Perspectivas multimodais sobre a comunicação com máscaras faciais em tempos de COVID-19.”Schröder, Ulrike, Anna Ladilova, Sineide Gonçalves, and Fernanda Roque Amendoreira submitted. “Perspectivas multimodais sobre a comunicação com máscaras faciais em tempos de COVID-19.”). In Sequence 5, we observe the end of an interaction between a health agent and a patient in which the health agent gives final instructions to the patient about his next appointment at which he should pick up the results of his exam:

01   A1:   com ↑ESse especiaLISta,
           with this specialist
02   P1:   CERto;
           right
03   A1:   você tem que fazer ↑↑NOvos exames;
           you have to do new tests
04   P1:   hm,
05   A1:   se os <<f> ↑↑SEus exames derem alguma altera’ÇÃO,
           if your test results show any changes
06   P1:   AH sei;
           yeah I know
07   A1:   <<pointing with her left hand at the patient’s papers> aí que a
           gente manda pra lá com o xeROX;=
           we’ll send them there by e-mail
08         <<pointing with her left hand onto the papers in her right
           hand>=aí a DÉbora vai providenciar os eXAmes;=
           and then debora will provide the tests
09         <<nodding>=cê vem aqui segunda-feira depois das ↑`ONze?
           you’ll get here on Monday after eleven o’clock
10   P1:   <<nodding> VEnho;>
                      I will
11   A1:   <<nodding> fazendo o fa↑`VOR?>
                      please
12   P1:   se↑GUNda depois das ONze;
           Monday after eleven o’clock
13   A1:   <<nodding> depois das onze;>
                      after eleven o’clock
14   P1:                                                ah [então] tá BOM;
                                                        ah well okay
15   A1:   <<moving her left flat hand from left to right> [tá   ] por que
           de manhã é vaCIna;
           cause in the morning there is vaccine
16   P1:   aHAM,
17   A1:   <<pointing with her right forefinger from left to right on her
           papers> aí a gente vai repetir> os exames,
                   then we’ll repeat the tests
18   P1:           [ah tÁ;]
                    ah okay
19   A1:   <<pointing with her right hand onto the paper and then in front
           of her> [sem   ] os exames ↑NÃO tem como você ir nesse médico;
                    without these tests you can’t go to the doctor
20   P1:   ah:: então tá BOM;
           ah well okay
21   A1:   <<f> enten↑↑DEU->
                you see

As we can see in Figures 4a–d below, the health agent is wearing her work clothes, a face mask and a face shield, while the patient is also wearing a face mask.1414. http://​conselheirolafaiete​.mg​.gov​.br​/v1​/wp​-content​/uploads​/2020​/04​/DECRETO​-586​-m%C3%A1scara​-obrigatoriedade​-1​.pdf. However, the health agent does not maintain the spatial distance of 1,50 to 2,00 as proposed by the WHO. This may partially be related to the difficulties of mutual understanding due to the use of face maks since the interactional space is mainly co-built, in addition to a natural, unimpeded face-to-face interaction, by intensified intonational and gestural means integrating the immediate material world at hand, in this case, particularly the papers in the health care worker’s hand. As embedded in empratic action, as Karl Bühler (1982 [1934])Bühler, Karl 1982 [1934] Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer.Bühler, Karl 1982 [1934] Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: Fischer. put it, deictic gestures play a major role in pointing to abstract or concrete objects in the immediate environment of the co-participants as a “situated practice” (Goodwin 2003Goodwin, Charles 2003 “Pointing as Situated Practice.” In Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet, ed. by Sotaro Kita, 225–250. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goodwin, Charles 2003 “Pointing as Situated Practice.” In Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet, ed. by Sotaro Kita, 225–250. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ), thereby facilitating co-orientation in the limited interaction. In the following excerpts 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d, taken from Sequence 5, we see how pointing gestures and gaze shifts are co-orchestrated with spoken language in order to guide the interlocutor through the procedural routine, that is, waiting for the results of his tests, getting the results on Monday, and then possibly coming back to see a doctor. By performing this activity, pointing to the concrete object, the papers, the concrete and abstract are highly intertwined, that is, pointing to the temporal path the patient has to pursue, which includes the tranposition of the the deictic gestures to the temporal axis (Streeck 2019Streeck, Jürgen 2019 “Gesture Research.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, p. 3–30. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Streeck, Jürgen 2019 “Gesture Research.” In Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. by Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, p. 3–30. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.):

05   A:   se os <<f> SEus exames
          derem alguma
          altera↑↑`ÇÄO,
          if your test results show any
          changes
06   P:   AH sei;
          yeah I know
07   A:   <<pointing with her
          left hand at the
          patient’s papers> aí
          que a gente manda pra
          lá com o xeROX;=
          we’ll send them there by e-mail

08   A:    <<pointing with her
           left hand onto the
           papers in her right
           hand>=aí a DĖbora vai
           Providenciar os eXAmes;=
           and then debora will provide the
           tests

15   A:   <<moving her left flat
          hand from left to
          right> [Tá   ] por que
          de manhã é vaCIna;
          cause in the morning there is
          vaccine
16   P:   aHAM,
17   A:   <<pointing with her
          right forefinger from
          left to right on her
          papers> aí a gente vai
          repetir> os exames,
          then we’ll repeat the tests

18   P:           [ah TÁ;]
                   ah okay
19   A:   <<pointing with her
          right hand onto the
          paper and then in front
          of her> [sem   ] os
          exames ↑NÃO tem como
          você ir nesse médico;
          without these tests you can’t go to
          the doctor