Chapter Three

Embodied Actions and Turn Construction

 

[abstract of chapter 3 in bold]: Two of the three key propositions of the dissertation are presented in this chapter and close analyses of several instances of interaction are used to provide evidence supporting these propositions:

Proposition 1: Embodied actions constitute a fifth domain of turn-construction unit types within the turn-taking system. Embodied actions fulfill criteria for construction unit type. Similar in some ways to grammatical units, they are recognizable to participants, display internal structures based on a body metric and performed patterns of behavior that allow for projectability of transition-relevant places, are recipient-designed, are locally-occasioned, and further sequential lines of action in ways that are interactionally contingent and that are oriented to and so treated by co-participants.

Proposition 2: Embodied actions affect the recognizable and projectable placement of turn boundaries. The occurrence of embodied actions as turns interestingly problematizes the fundamental concepts of turn-constructional unit, turn completion, turn overlap, and intra-turn silences.

Exemplars from the data illustrate each argument.

[text of chapter 3 = incomplete]:

[section 1]: Embodied Actions and Turn-Construction

The focus of this section is specifically on how embodied actions function in constituting and organizing turn-taking in interaction. Many researchers have studied and are studying the various intricate ways in which we go about managing and making sense of everyday interaction: through spoken utterance, gesture, facial movement, gaze, head movement, and body movement, among other resources. Conversation analysts have established that there is a "simplest systematics" for turn-taking by speakers in conversation based on a standard four types of spoken construction units (words, phrases, clauses, and sentences) and on two turn-allocation techniques (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson, 1974; West and Zimmerman, 1982; Lerner, 1991). The turn-taking system will be examined more closely to provide a framework for understanding how embodied actions can operate as turns.

I argue that the regular occurrence of embodied actions in face-to-face encounters suggests that a friendly amendment to the expanding description of the turn-taking system (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974) is in order such that a fifth domain of turn-construction unit types be added to the existing spoken domains of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. The problem of what constitutes a turn-constructional unit has been dealt with in linguistic terms based on grammatical units (Lerner 1991; Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). But embodied action-units embedded in an unfolding line of activity may or may not include spoken grammatical components and yet still exhibit order within the rubrics of turn-taking.

Embodied actions in particular instances of interaction can affect the boundaries of what gets treated by participants as a completed turn and thereby can impact the smooth operation of the turn-taking system. That this is so, and how embodied actions are used to accomplish constitutive and organizational tasks, will be demonstrated through close analyses of particular instances of everyday interaction.

This discussion locates and narrows the examination of embodied actions within the boundaries of the turn-taking system in order to establish basic groundwork upon which subsequent descriptions depend. Key evidence presented here is that the internal order and structure of particular instances of coordinated embodied actions, their position in unfolding sequences of face-to-face interaction, their recipient-design, and their locally-occasioned fit within an unfolding line of activity allow for the construction of recognizable and projectable action-units that are treated as such by co-participants.

This discussion builds analyses of how co-participants display orientation to and treatment of embodied actions as turns in an on-going line of activity. The sections in this chapter treat embodied actions and turn-construction, and then examine in detail specific instances of human interaction that provide evidence to support these propositions:

Proposition 1: Embodied actions constitute a fifth domain of turn-construction unit types within the turn-taking system. Embodied actions fulfill criteria for construction unit type. Similar in some ways to grammatical units, they are recognizable to participants, display internal structures based on a body metric and performed patterns of behavior that allow for projectability of transition-relevant places, are recipient-designed, are locally-occasioned, and further sequential lines of action in ways that are interactionally contingent and that are oriented to and so treated by co-participants.

Proposition 2: Embodied actions affect the recognizable and projectable placement of turn boundaries. The occurrence of embodied actions as turns interestingly problematizes the fundamental concepts of turn-constructional unit, turn completion, turn overlap, and intra-turn silences.

The analyses presented here illustrate that the following two turn-type configurations may be used by co-present interactants to further a variety of communicative tasks:

- embodied action turns with nonvocalized components

- embodied action turns with vocalized and nonvocalized

components

Examples demonstrate both configurations of embodied actions functioning within and constituting various types of adjacency-pair sequences (request/compliance, question/answer, assessment/ acknowledgment, proffer/response, and so forth). Both configurations of embodied actions turns may also be used to, for example, display irony, further tellings or reports, and, generally, constitute the turns of next-turn-holder in co-present interaction.

 

[section 2]: The Turn-Taking System and "Turn" Criteria

In their description of the turn-taking system, Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) make explicit some relationships between turn-construction unit types, speakership transition, and projectability:

There are various unit types with which a speaker may set

out to construct a turn. Unit types for English include

sentential, clausal, phrasal, and lexical constructions

Instances of the unit-types so usable allow a projection of

the unit-type under way, and what, roughly, it will take for an

instance of that unit-type to be completed....

The first possible completion of a first such unit constitutes an

initial transition-relevance place. Transfer of speakership is

coordinated by reference to such transition-relevance

places, which any unit-type instance will reach. (702-703)

Concerning the recognizable projectability of a turn-construction unit type, the turn-taking system includes specifications for how participants project possible completion points: "Sentential constructions are capable of being analyzed in the course of their production by a party/hearer able to use such analyses to project their possible directions and completion loci" (709).

In the specific instances of interaction examined here, it is argued that embodied actions -- during the course of their unfolding -- are recognizable to recipients and quickly reveal "projectable directions" that are oriented to and analyzed by recipients such that possible completion points are anticipated and turn-transition is accomplished smoothly. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson explicitly specify that a viable turn-construction unit must have this feature of recognizable projectability (Section 4.13):

... whatever the units employed for the construction, and

whatever the theoretical language employed to describe

them, they still have points of possible unit completion, points

which are projectable before their occurrence. (720)

Our focus is on certain embodied enactments as "units employed for construction" of viable turns. According to Wilson, Wiemann, and Zimmerman (1984), "the notion of unit-type should not be restricted to words, phrases, clauses, and sentences, but instead be viewed as a variable unit" (177). In his study of talk and recipiency, Heath (1984) focused on what he termed "nonvocal components" of the interaction (250). Finally, in his (forthcoming) work on grammar and interaction, Schegloff has argued that:

What sorts of entities (described in grammatical or other

terms) will be used and treated as turn-constructional units

is determined by those who USE the language (broadly

understood -- that is, to include gesture, facial expression,

etc. when/where relevant), not those who study it

academically. Calls for formal definitions of a TCU [Turn-

Constructional Unit] -- beyond their status as units which can

constitute possibly complete turns as above -- are therefore

bound to be disappointed, but inquiries to explore such

issues should be expected to yield interesting results. (1996)

In the "Drop-Catch" fragment [[[[USE PICT]]]] from the playful interaction of a father and daughter, the child's active configuring of a particular embodied action -- the assembling together of its various internal structures and its enactment over time as she creates her request to be raised up -- permits her co-participant to recognize her turn as a request and to project as upcoming a possible completion point of the turn and, therefore, that moment's transition-relevance. It is at just this position and moment that the father performs his action-turn and complies rapidly with the request as an immediately relevant next item due in the progressing course of their shared activity. In the Eyeroll instance, ......[[[USE PICT]]]]].......

Analysis of several exemplars are provided to illustrate the recurrent and systematic use of embodied actions as turns in everyday encounters. The discussion examines recent work by McIlvenny (1995) [[[[[FOOTNOTE DISCUSSION]]] on how the deaf make use of visual space and the body in constituting and managing their interactions. This work further problematizes a solely grammar-based concept of turn-construction unit. [[[AND CITE MADELINE]]]]]

 

 

[section 3]: Recognizability and Adjacency Pairs

Following Sacks' admonition that analysts of human interaction should be "dealing with recognizability, constantly" (1992, Vol. I, 239), one of the claims being made here is that embodied actions are produced with the expectation and in such a manner that they will be recognizable to recipients. Within vocalized adjacency pairs, it is well-described [[[[WHERE? SS&J; SEE GOODWINS' QUOTE OF SACKS HERE; 1972 GUMPERZ ON "SLOTS", OR SOME OTHER QUOTE/CITE]]]] that recognizing and producing a relevant and appropriate next item at a precisely specified and projectable-in-advance moment is part of the interactional work co-participants must accomplish. The present data reveal that embodied actions are used recurrently and systematically by participants to create and to fill adjacency-pair slots in unfolding sequences of interaction. That co-participants do so is compelling evidence that embodied actions function as valid "turns." Analysis of particular instances of interaction demonstrates participants' use of embodied actions in constituting adjacency pair turns.

--Thirsty; thumbs Up; Sick?; Torqued; Can You Move?; Chunks; Glass Position; e&L Nods; spencer Smells Cup; and also add "alignment displays" (they do MORE than just this) that seem recurrently to operate in an adjancency-pair-like manner: nod/nod ---> a proffered assessment EA and an aligning EA....like Glass Position and like Chunks. (And talk re: performance in discussion in NOTES).

[section 4]: Turn Boundary and "Completion"

The projection of possible completion of a turn is a key requirement for the construction of turns that provides for smooth turn-taking:

In the course of its construction, any sentential unit will

rapidly (in conversation) reveal projectable directions and

conclusions, which its further course can modify, but will

further define ... (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson; 709)

In the case of embodied actions, however, we are no longer dealing only with "sentential constructions." In nonvocalized instances, one need not consider any grammatical units as linguists have delimited them. This makes problematic an understanding of "completion" in terms of syntax. The following observations made by Jefferson (1986) concerning the onset of turns and problems of possible completion are directly related to the argument that embodied actions may serve as turn-construction units:

When I talk about how recipients monitor an utterance in

progress, I talk in terms of possibly complete actions, and/or

syntactic possible completion. (179)

and

That an utterance is possibly complete, in terms of action

and/or syntax, appears to be used to handle both aspects of

"completion." (182)

Yet, as with the Drop-Catch example, turns may not be uttered at all. "Completion" of a turn and projection of possible completion must therefore get displayed in ways that extend beyond grammatical, linguistic (spoken) forms. That embodied action turns may display "possibly complete action" is clear; how they may do so is one of the problems under study here.

Furthermore, analysis of the data demonstrates that frequently turns are constructed using both vocalized and nonvocalized embodied action units. In many instances, as we have seen, it is clear that the turn boundary extends beyond the last spoken components and that the first place of transition-relevance lies, for example, after the completion of the unspoken unit(s). Therefore, the work of projecting possible completion of the turn must get done in part by the unfolding of the nonvocalized embodied action component of the turn.

How can embodied components project possible completion? This question is addressed in more detail in the next chapter on the body as a communicative resource; but for now let it be stated that there are unique properties of turns constructed with embodied action units that differ somewhat from those constructed by vocalized grammatical units.

One of these properties concerns the physical building of the turn over time as it is becoming visibly available to a co-participant. Possible completion is projected based in part on the internal structuring of the embodied configuration, and as a turn is being enacted, those structures congeal to become recognizable by recipients for whom it is designed. (At least, that is the expectation of the producer of the turn).

Frequently, a recognition point appears to coincide with the moment a producer holds immobile, or slows, or repeats some embodied configuration. Furthermore, there is a sense in which embodied action turns can be shown to be what Schegloff has termed "'pragmatically' complete (i.e., it recognizably implements an action)" (1996, 8). [[[[[[[SHOW THREE EXAMPLES]]]]

The concept of "completion", then, is extended beyond the linguistically syntactic to include the embodied, the pragmatic. the performative.

 

[Section 5]: Turn Overlap (Asleep, Mike, Refrigerator Noises, Harem)

 

[Section 6]: When Intra-turn Silences Are Not Pauses

-- (implicit in the prior discussion is the observation made explicit here: that silences in the talk frequently are neither pauses in the interaction nor gaps in the current turn-holder's turn. Transcription conventions in conversation analysis usually mark silences by indicating their duration in tenths of seconds enclosed in parentheses. .....Etc.....[[[extend this]]]]]

 

[section 7]: Attention: Co-Participants Must Show and See

In the on-going flow of face-to-face interaction, embodied actions are resources that can be produced by performers, and attended to, recognized during the course of their unfolding, and oriented to quite precisely by recipients. In tracking the fine-grained attentive behavior that allows participants to employ embodied actions in the construction of their turns, we build on Jefferson's observation that participants recurrently display aural attention to "particles" or tiny "objects", especially in transition-relevant places; in her study, objects lie in the auditory domain and include consonants, inbreaths, and "a bit of silence" (1986, 167).

With embodied actions, participants produce physicalized "objects" with their bodies; and recipients must provide visual as well as aural attention. For deaf interactants, McIlvenny has referred to a "lived-in visual-spatial modality" (147); all seeing, co-present interactants inhabit and rely upon it.

In our example, the child produces a coordinated and dynamic request-configuration with her body, and her father's rapid response provides evidence for the closeness of his visual monitoring and attending to her interactive turn. Providing and relying upon such close aural and visual attentiveness is part of the work interactants must do in order to analyze the unfolding structures of turns, to project places of possible completion, and to accomplish smooth turn-transition.

The flow of turn-taking organization involves participants making themselves available to one another in producing and in attending to both spoken and unspoken (aural and visual/

physical) structures unfolding sequentially in the interaction. In an important early work, Charles Goodwin raised the issue of visual as well as aural attention in his examination of restarts, pauses, and mutual gaze (1980); and he described how the "services of the hearer," as he phrased it, could include provision of visual attention. Goodwin demonstrated how a speaker (with visual access to recipient's head) [[[[[[DO I HAVE MY OWN EXAMPLE?]]]]]]]]] could project incipient attentiveness from slight head-turning movements of a recipient (279).

Goodwin's findings, tied with Jefferson's observations on interactants' fine-grained monitoring of one another's actions and with McIlvenny's descriptions of deaf interactants, provide empirical support grounded in past research for the orientation of my claims regarding co-participants' behavior in face-to-face interactions. In terms of empirically observable actions of human communicators, it is this same degree of fineness of orienting-to and attending-to behaviors that interactants utilize aurally AND visually in attending-to and orienting-to embodied action units with nonvocalized components such that they are recurrently and systematically able to take up the unfolding sequence of activity and display appropriate and relevant next bits of action. Some ways the body exhibits orderliness are taken up in the next chapter.