Activities as Discrete Organizational Domains

  • Harrie MazelandEmail author


Activities in human interaction are shaped as discrete organizational domains. Interactants delimit an activity from surrounding courses of action and use activity-specific practices through which they manage the interaction as specifically that type of activity. After an analysis of two different forms of organising activities that unfold primarily in and through talk, a comparison is made with an activity that develops as the coordinated performance of a practical task. Participants take the activity-context into consideration when making sense of a turn at talk. The setting of routine activities may be usefully conceptualised as a situated activity system. The notion provides a framework to consider the interplay of the semiotic resources participants rely on relative to the activity in which they are used.


  1. Atkinson, Max, Ted Cuff, and John Lee. 1978. The recommencement of a meeting as a member’s accomplishment. In Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, ed. Jim Schenkein, 133–153. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berenst, Jan, and Harrie Mazeland. 2008. Typifying and sorting: The construction of pupil-identity types in staff meetings. In Interaction in two multicultural mathematics classrooms: Mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion, ed. Jeanine Deen, Maaike Hajer, and Tom Koole, 235–265. Amsterdam: Aksant.Google Scholar
  3. Bergmann, Jörg. 1981. Frage und Frageparaphrase: Aspekte der redezuginternen und sequentiellen Organisation eines Äusserungsformats. In Methoden der Analyse von Face-to-Face-Situationen, ed. Peter Winkler, 142–182. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, Jörg. 1991. Deskriptive Praktiken als Gegenstand und Methode der Ethnomethodologie. In Sinn und Erfahrung. Phänomenologische Methoden in den Humanwissenschaften, ed. Max Herzog and Carl Graumann, 86–102. Heidelberg: Asanger Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Boden, Deirdre. 1994. The business of talk: Organizations in action. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Button, Graham, and Neil Casey. 1988. Topic initiation: Business-at-hand. Research on Language and Social Interaction 22: 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayman, Steven E. 2010. Address terms in the service of other actions: The case of news interview talk. Discourse and Communication 4 (2): 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clayman, Steven E., and John Heritage. 2002. Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S. presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52 (4): 749–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drew, Paul, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz. 2015. Introduction. In Talking about troubles in conversation, ed. Gail Jefferson, 1–26. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Goffman, Erving. 1972. Role distance. In Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction, ed. Erving Goffman, 73–134. London: Penguin (first published by Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis 1961).Google Scholar
  11. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footing. In Forms of talk, ed. Erving Goffman, 124–159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  12. Good, Jeffrey S., and Wayne A. Beach. 2005. Opening up gift-openings: Birthday parties as situated activity systems. Text 25 (5): 565–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin, Charles. 1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96 (3): 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodwin, Charles. 1997. The blackness of black: Color categories as situated practice. In Discourse, tools and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition, ed. Lauren B. Resnick, Roger Säljö, Clotilde Pontecorvo, and Barbara Burge, 111–140. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, Charles. 2013. The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 8–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin. 1996. Seeing as a situated activity: Formulating planes. In Cognition and communication at work, ed. Yrjö Engeström and David Middleton, 61–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1996. Informings and announcements in their environment: Prosody within a multi-activity work setting. In Prosody in conversation, ed. Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen and Margret Selting, 436–461. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hanks, William F. 1996. Language and communicative practices. Oxford and Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  20. Heritage, John. 2012. Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 1994. Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 1987. Establishing agreement: An analysis of proposal-acceptance sequences. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  23. Houtkoop-Streenstra, Hanneke, and Harrie Mazeland. 1985. Turns and discourse units in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hymes, Dell. 1972. Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, ed. John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  25. Jayyusi, Lena. 1984. Categorization and the moral order. Boston: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Jefferson, Gail. 1984. On stepwise transition from talk about trouble to inappropriately next positioned matters. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ed. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 191–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jefferson, Gail. 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems 35 (4): 418–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jefferson, Gail. 2015. Talking about troubles in conversation, ed. Paul Drew, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jefferson, Gail, and John Lee. 1981. The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a trouble-telling and a service encounter. Journal of Pragmatics 5 (5): 399–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. Marking boundaries between activities: The particle nii in Estonian. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (2): 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lahlou, Saadi. 2017. How agency is distributed through installations. In Distributed agency, ed. N.J. Enfield and Paul Kockelman, 221–229. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee, Seung-Hee. 2011. Responding at a higher level: Activity progressivity in calls for service. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 904–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lerner, Gene, and Tomoyo Takagi. 1999. On the place of linguistic resources in the organization of talk-in-interaction: A co-investigation of English and Japanese grammatical practices. Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1): 49–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lerner, Gene and Geoffrey Raymond. forthcoming. Adjusting action: Some elementary forms of social co-ordination in interaction. University of California Santa Barbara (mimeo).Google Scholar
  36. Lerner, Gene, Don Zimmermann, and Mardi Kidwell. 2011. Formal structures of practical tasks: A resource for actions in the social life of very young children. In Embodied interaction, ed. Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron, 44–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  37. Levinson, Stephen. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at work, ed. Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (first published in Linguistics 17(5–6), 1979, 356–399).Google Scholar
  38. Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levinson, Stephen. 2013. Action formation and ascription. In The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 103–130. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Local, John, Paul Drew, and Peter Auer. 2010. Retrieving, redoing, and resuscitating turns in conversation. In Prosody in interaction, ed. Dagmar Weingarten-Barth, Elisabeth Reber, and Margret Selting, 131–160. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mazeland, Harrie. 1992. Vraag/antwoord-sequenties. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
  42. Mazeland, Harrie. 2004. Responding to the double implication of telemarketers opinion queries. Discourse Studies 6 (1): 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mazeland, Harrie. 2016. The positionally sensitive workings of the Dutch particle nou. In NU/NÅ: A family of discourse markers across the languages of Europe and beyond, ed. Peter Auer and Yael Maschler, 377–408. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  44. Mazeland, Harrie, and Jan Berenst. 2008. Sorting pupils in a report-card meeting: Categorization in a situated activity system. Text and Talk 28 (1): 55–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nevile, Maurice. 2007. Action in time: Ensuring timeliness for collaborative work in the airline cockpit. Language in Society 36 (2): 233–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pekarek Doehler, Simona. 2002. Mediation revisited: The interactive organization of mediation in learning environments. Mind, Culture, and Activity 9 (1): 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn-shapes. In Structures of social action, ed. Max Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pomerantz, Anita. 1988. Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communication Monographs 55: 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pomerantz, Anita. 2017. Inferring the purpose of a prior query and responding accordingly. In Enabling human conduct: Naturalistic studies of talk-in-interaction in honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff, ed. Geoffrey Raymond, Gene Lerner, and John Heritage, 51–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rehbein, Jochen. 1977. Komplexes Handeln. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rehbein, Jochen. 1984. Beschreiben, berichten und erzählen. In Erzählen im Alltag, ed. Konrad Ehlich, 67–125. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  52. Robinson, Jeffrey D. 2013. Overall structural organization. In The handbook of conversation analysis, ed. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 257–280. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  53. Robinson, Jeffrey, and Tanya Stivers. 2001. Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient encounters: From history-taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research 27 (2): 253–298.Google Scholar
  54. Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation, vol. II, ed. Harvey Sacks, Gail Jefferson, and Emanuel Schegloff. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1987. Some sources of misunderstandings in talk-in-interaction. Linguistics 25 (1): 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and grammar, ed. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schegloff, Emanuel. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schegloff, Emanuel. 2011. Word repeats as unit ends. Discourse Studies 13 (3): 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schegloff, Emanuel, and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7: 289–327.Google Scholar
  61. Walker, Traci, Paul Drew, and John Local. 2011. Responding indirectly. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (9): 2434–2451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wanders, Marlies. 2004. De communicatie tussen ouderen en verzorgers in een verzorgingstehuis. Master’ thesis, Department of Language and Communication, University Groningen.Google Scholar
  63. Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1982 [1958]. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations