Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Primacy of Affective Engagement in Simultaneously Unfolding Participation Frameworks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complexity of Interaction

  • 243 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the emergence of emotion among individuals in the midst of doing different activities while engaged in multiple concurrent participation frameworks. Drawing from intercorporeal and co-operative perspectives to interaction analysis, we examine how affective engagement across these simultaneously unfolding participation frameworks is accomplished in four different interactional ecologies: a baby’s health check-up in Finland, a mainstream classroom with deaf students in Peru, a celebratory gathering of friends in the US, and a video call between migrant parents and their children in China. With a focus on embodied aspects of emotion, our analysis shows that emotional engagement is prioritized in complex multiparty interactions, and how multimodality and multisensoriality of affective expression enables the individuals’ access to other participation frameworks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Brennan, Teresa. 2004. The transmission of affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Busch, Gillian Roslyn. 2018. ‘Happy birthday Grandpa’: Using video-supported technologies in family communication. Research on Children and Social Interaction 2 (1): 74–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cekaite, Asta. 2016. Touch as social control: Tactile organization of attention in adult-child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics 92: 30–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Meulder, Maartje, Annelies Kusters, Erin Moriarty, and Joseph J. Murray. 2019. Describe, don’t prescribe. The practice and politics of translanguaging in the context of deaf signers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40: 892–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duranti, Alessandro, ed. 2004. Agency in language. In A companion to linguistic anthropology, 451–473. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, Paul. 1984. Expression and the nature of emotion. Approaches to Emotion 3: 19–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enfield, Nick J. 2009. Composite utterances. In The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances, 1–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favareau, Donald, ed. 2018. Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernald, Anne. 1985. Four-month-old infants prefer to listen to motherese. Infant Behavior and Development 8: 181–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gan, Yumei. 2020. Choreographing affective relationships across distances: Multigenerational engagement in video calls between migrant parents and their left-behind children in China (Doctoral Dissertation). Hong Kong, China: The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gan, Yumei. 2021. ‘Awww, she is feeding you’: Young children’s (dis) engagement in video calls with their migrant parents. Research on Children and Social Interaction 5 (1): 80–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gan, Yumei, Christian Greiffenhagen, and Christian Licoppe. 2020. Orchestrated openings in video calls: Getting young left-behind children to greet their migrant parents. Journal of Pragmatics 170: 364–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, Harold. 2002. Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis (Ind.): Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1971. Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goico, Sara A. 2019. The impact of ‘inclusive’ education on the language of deaf youth in Iquitos, Peru. Sign Language Studies 19 (3): 348–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goico, Sara A. 2020. A linguistic ethnography approach to the study of deaf youth and local signs in Iquitos, Peru. Sign Language Studies 20 (4): 619–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Charles. 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology, ed. George Psathas, 97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1987. Unilateral departure. In Talk and social organisation, ed. by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee, 206–216. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2002. Time in action. Current Anthropology 43 (Supplement August–October 2002): S19–S35.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2018. Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 2004. Participation. In A Companion to linguistic anthropology, ed. Alessandro Duranti, 222–243. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1997. “Byplay: Negotiating evaluation in storytelling.” In Toward a social science of language: Papers in Honor of William Labov. Vol. 2: Social interaction and discourse structures, ed. Gregory R. Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh, 77–102. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Haptic sociality: The embodied interactive construction of intimacy through touch. In Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction, ed. Christian Meyer, Jürgen, Streeck and J. Scott Jordan, 73–102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Asta Cekaite. 2018. Embodied family choreography: Practices of control, care, and mundane creativity. Oxford and New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Marjorie H., Asta Cekaite, and Charles Goodwin. 2012. Emotion as stance. In Emotion in interaction, ed. Marja-Leena Sorjonen and Anssi Peräkylä, 16–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haddington, Pentti, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, eds. 2013. Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddington, Pentti, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile. 2014. Towards multiactivity as a social and interactional phenomenon. In Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking, ed. Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 3–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, Nicholas. 2015. The pragmatics of qualia in practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 44: 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertenstein, Matthew J. 2002. Touch: Its communicative functions in infancy. Human Development 45: 70–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmström-Gupta, Ingela, Bagga Sangeeta, and Rickard Jonsson. 2015. Communicating and hand(ling) technologies. Everyday life in educational settings where pupils with cochlear implants are mainstreamed. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 25 (3): 256–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homanen, Riikka. 2013. Doing pregnancy, the unborn, and the maternity healthcare institution, Academic Dissertation. Tampere University Press: Tampere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, Edmund. 1982. General introduction to a pure phenomenology, trans. F. Kersten. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an Introduction. In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. Gene H. Lerner, 13–23. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joaquin, Anna Dina L., and John H. Schumann, eds. 2013. Exploring the interactional instinct. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, Julia. 2018. Tactile intercorporeality in a group of mothers and their children: a micro study of practices for intimacy and participation, Academic Dissertation. Tampere: Tampere University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, Julia, and Johanne S. Philipsen. 2019. The intercorporeality of closing a curtain: Sharing similar past experiences in interaction. Pragmatics & Cognition 26: 2/3: 167–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, Julia, and Sanna Raudaskoski. 2020. Interaction analysis as an embodied and interactive process: Multimodal, co-operative, and intercorporeal ways of seeing video data as complementary professional visions. Human Studies 43: 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne & Sydney: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusters, Annelies. 2017. Gesture-based customer interactions: Deaf and hearing Mumbaikars’ multimodal and metrolingual practices. International Journal of Multilingualism 14 (3): 283–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the Human “Interaction Engine”. In Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition and interaction, ed. Nick J. Enfield, and Stephen C. Levinson, 39–69. Oxford & New York: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIlvenny, Paul, Broth Mathias, and Pentti Haddington. 2009. Communicating place, space and mobility. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1879–1886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, Christian, Jürgen Streeck, and J. Scott Jordan, eds. 2017. Introduction. In Intercorporeality: Emerging socialities in interaction, xiv–xlix. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, Lorenza. 2014a. The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, Lorenza. 2014b. The temporal orders of multiactivity: operating and demonstrating in the surgical theatre. In Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking, ed. Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 33–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, Lorenza. 2019. Conventions for transcribing multimodality. Version 5.0.1. Available from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription.

  • Peräkylä, Anssi. 2013. Conversation analysis in psychotherapy. In Handbook of conversation analysis ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 551–574. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peräkylä, Anssi, Liisa Voutilainen, Melisa Stevanovic, Pentti Henttonen, Mikko Kahri, Maari Kivioja, Emmi Koskinen, Mikko Sams, and Niklas Ravaja. 2021. Emotion, psychopsysiology and intersubjectivity. In Intersubjectivity in action: Studies in language and social interaction, ed. Jan Lindström, et al., 303–327. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Peräkylä, Anssi, and Johanna Ruusuvuori. 2012. Facial expression and interactional regulation of emotion. In Emotion in Interaction, ed. Marja-Leena Sorjonen and Anssi Peräkylä, 64–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillet-Shore, Danielle. 2012. Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language & Social Interaction 45 (4): 375–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, Claire L. 1997. Deaf children in public schools: Placement, context, and consequences, vol. 3. Washington, D.C: Gallaudet University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2013. Emotion, affect and conversation analysis. In Handbook of conversation analysis ed. Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 330–349. John Wiley & Sons Incorporated, West Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conve##rsation, vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2010. Commentary on Stivers and Rossano: Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1998. Body Torque. Social Research 65 (3): 535–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sierra, Sylvia. 2017. “Buffy sings to Cody”: A multimodal analysis of mother and pre-lingual-infant question-response sequences. Journal of Pragmatics 110: 50–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, Daniel. N. 2002[1977]. The first relationship: Infant and Mother. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throop, C. Jason. 2014. Moral moods. Ethos 42 (1): 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevarthen, Colwyn, and Kenneth J. Aitken. 2001. Infant intersubjectivity: Research, theory, and clinical applications. Journal of Child Psychiatry 42 (1): 3–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tronick, Ed.Z. 1989. Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American Psychologist 44 (2): 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [UNESCO] 1994. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Salamanca, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

    Julia Katila

  2. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Sara A. Goico & Marjorie Harness Goodwin

  3. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

    Yumei Gan

Authors
  1. Julia Katila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara A. Goico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yumei Gan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Katila .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Languages and Literature, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Pentti Haddington

  2. Languages and Literature, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Tiina Eilittä

  3. Languages and Literature, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Antti Kamunen

  4. Languages and Literature, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Laura Kohonen-Aho

  5. Languages and Literature, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Iira Rautiainen

  6. Languages and Literature, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Anna Vatanen

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 The Transcription Conventions Used in the Conversations

(0.5):

Numbers in brackets indicate a time gap in tenths of a second.

(.):

A dot enclosed in brackets indicates a micropause of less than two-tenths of a second.

 =:

An equals sign indicates an absolute contiguity between utterances.

():

Single parentheses indicate an unclear utterance or another sound.

.hh:

This indicates upward inbreath. The more repetition of “h”, the longer the breath is.

hhh:

The letter “h” repeated with no preceding dot represents exhalation.

::

Colons indicate a stretching of a sound.

.:

A full stop indicates a falling tone.

,:

A comma indicates a continuing tone.

↑↓:

Upward and downward arrows mark the overall rise or fall in pitch across a phrase.

° °:

Hollow dots indicate a speech produced with a silent voice.

Under :

Underlining indicates the speaker’s emphasis.

@ @:

The “at” symbol indicates speech produced with a smiley tone of voice.

(()):

Double parentheses indicate the analyst’s comment.

Color gray:

indicates information about non-vocal moves.

[:

is used to indicate overlap.

!:

indicates animated or emphatic tone.

1.2 Transcription Symbols for Extract 2

  • Signs/gestures are in all CAPS.

  • / A forward slash indicates a package of bodily actions that are produced together.

  • The timing of speech and gestures/signs is indicated using two tiers and the symbol ** to refer to when the gesture/signs start and stop in the speech.

  • PT indicates a point.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Katila, J., Goico, S.A., Gan, Y., Goodwin, M.H. (2023). The Primacy of Affective Engagement in Simultaneously Unfolding Participation Frameworks. In: Haddington, P., Eilittä, T., Kamunen, A., Kohonen-Aho, L., Rautiainen, I., Vatanen, A. (eds) Complexity of Interaction. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30727-0_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30727-0_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30726-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30727-0

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation