Advertisement

‘Showing’ as a Means of Engaging a Reluctant Participant into a Joint Activity

  • Cornelia GerhardtEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The gesture ‘showing’ helps shape a specific activity as well as local roles and moral obligations. Against the backdrop of the activity of a father and daughter “cleaning her room”, this paper raises the question why participants choose to pick up an object rather than simply point at it. In contrast to ‘pointing’, the gesture ‘showing’ involves picking up the object moving it into the projected site of vision of the addressee to establish mutual orientation and a joint activity space. ‘Showing’ appears to be a powerful means to increase the relevance of a response against the backdrop of the trajectory of the unfolding activity. It allows for manipulations of the object and it represents a display of greater commitment, closer association or contiguity.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Elisabeth Reber, Lorenza Mondada, Harrie Mazeland, Jörg Bergmann, Geoffrey Raymond and all members of the MEmI Network as well as members of the audience of the panel on Activities in Interaction at IPrA Belfast for their comments and suggestions.

References

  1. Attardo, Salvatore, Jodi Eisterhold, Jennifer Hay, and Isabella Poggi. 2003. Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor 16 (2): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayaß, Ruth. 2014. Using media as involvement shields. Journal of Pragmatics 72: 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, Elizabeth, Luigia Camaioni, and Virginia Volterra. 1975. The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development 21 (3): 205–226.Google Scholar
  4. Bezemer, Jeff, Ged Murtagh, Alexandra Cope, Gunther Kress, and Roger Kneebone. 2011. “Scissors, please”: The practical accomplishment of surgical work in the operating theater. Symbolic Interaction 34 (3): 398–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carlson, Gregory. 2004. Reference. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 75–96. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Cary, Mark S. 1979. Gaze and facial displays in pedestrian passing. Semiotica 28 (3/4): 323–326.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, Herbert H. 2003. Pointing and placing. In Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet, ed. Sotaro Kita, 243–268. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Dausendschön-Gay, Ulrich. 2006. Pratiques communicatives et appropriation de langues à l’école primaire. In La classe de langue: Théories, méthodes et pratiques, ed. Martine Faraco, 71–91. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence.Google Scholar
  9. Dausendschön-Gay, Ulrich. 2012. Wie wir zu den Wörtern und die Wörter zu uns kommen. In Sozialität in slow motion: Theoretische und empirische Perspektiven: Festschrift für Jörg Bergmann, ed. Ruth Ayass and Christian Meyer, 201–216. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. De Stefani, Elwys. 2010. Reference as an interactively and multimodally accomplished practice: Organizing spatial reorientation in guided tours. In Spoken communication, ed. Massimo Pettorino, Antonella Giannini, Isabella Chiari, and Francesca Dovetto, 137–170. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
  11. Duncan, Susan D., Justine Cassell, and Elena Terry Levy. 2007. Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language: Essays in honor of David McNeill. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen. 1969. The repertoire of non-verbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica 1 (1): 49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ekman, Paul, and Wallace V. Friesen. 1972. Hand movements. Journal of Communication 22 (4): 353–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fassnacht, Chris, and David K. Woods. 2005. Transana: A tool for the transcription of audio/visual data (version 2.53). Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  15. Gerhardt, Cornelia. 2012. Notability: The construction of current events in talk-in-interaction. In The appropriation of media in everyday life (Pragmatics and beyond new series 224), ed. Ruth Ayaß and Cornelia Gerhardt, 47–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerhardt, Cornelia. 2014. Appropriating live football through talk (Studies in pragmatics 13). Amsterdam: Brill.Google Scholar
  17. Givens, David. 1981. Greeting a stranger: Some commonly used nonverbal signals of aversiveness. In Nonverbal communication, interaction and gesture, ed. Adam Kendon, Thomas A. Sebeok, and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 219–236. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  18. Goffman, Erving. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, Erving. 1961. Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Oxford: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  20. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  21. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Footing. In Forms of talk, ed. Erving Goffman, 124–159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (orig.: 1979. Semiotica 25: 1–29).Google Scholar
  22. Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodwin, Charles. 2003. Pointing as situated practice. In Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet, ed. Sotaro Kita, 217–241. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Goodwin, Charles. 2007. Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse and Society 18 (1): 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayashi, Makoto, Geoffrey Raymond, and Jack Sidnell, eds. 2013. Conversational repair and human understanding (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hindmarsh, Jon, and Christian Heath. 2000. Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (12): 1855–1878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoiting, Nini, and Dan I. Slobin. 2007. From gestures to signs in the acquisition of sign language. In Gesture and the dynamic dimension of language: Essays in honor of David McNeill, ed. Susan D. Duncan, Justine Cassell, and Elena Terry Levy, 51–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  28. Kirsh, David. 1995. Complementary strategies: Why we use our hands when we think. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. Johanna D. Moore and Jill Fain Lehman, 212–217. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Kita, Sotaro (ed.). 2003. Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Laurier, Eric. 2008. Drinking up endings: Conversational resources of the café. Language & Communication 28 (2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at work, ed. Paul Drew and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. Deixis. In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 97–121. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Licoppe, Christian, and Julien Morel. 2012. Video-in-interaction: “Talking heads” and the multimodal organization of mobile and Skype video calls. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (4): 399–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lizka, James Jakób. 1996. A general introduction to the semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Mondada, Lorenza. 2003. Working with video: How surgeons produce video records of their actions. Visual Studies 18 (1): 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mondada, Lorenza. 2005. La constitution de l’origo déictique comme travail interactionnel des participants: Une approche praxéologique de la spatialité. Intellectica 41–42 (2/3): 75–100.Google Scholar
  37. Mondada, Lorenza. 2012. Deixis: An integrated interactional multimodal analysis. In Prosody and embodiment in interactional grammar, ed. Pia Bergmann, Jana Brenning, Martin Pfeiffer, and Elisabeth Reber, 173–206. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  38. Peräkylä, Anssi, and Johanna Ruusuvuori. 2006. Facial expressions in an assessment. In Video-analysis—Methodology and methods: Qualitative audiovisual data analysis in sociology, ed. Hubert Knoblauch, Bernt Schnettler, Jürgen Raab, and Hans-Georg Soeffner, 127–142. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
  39. Pitsch, Karola, Anna-Lisa Vollmer, Katharina Rohlfing, Jannik Fritsch, and Britta Wrede. 2014. Tutoring in adult-child interaction: On the loop of the tutor’s action modification and the recipient’s gaze. Interaction Studies 15 (1): 55–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Poggi, Isabella, Federica Cavicchio, and Emanuela Magno Caldognetto. 2007. Irony in a judicial debate: Analyzing the subtleties of irony while testing the subtleties of an annotation scheme. Language Resources and Evaluation 41: 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Richards, Jack C., and Theodore S. Rodgers. 2014. Approaches and methods in language teaching, 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rosenbaun, Laura, and Christian Licoppe. 2017. Showing ‘digital’ objects in web-based video chats as collaborative achievement. Journal of Pragmatics 27 (3): 419–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language 50 (4): 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and grammar, ed. Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1998. Body torque. Social Research 65 (3): 535–596.Google Scholar
  46. Selting, Margret. 1991. W-Fragen in konversationellen Frage-Antwort-Sequenzen. In Fragesätze und Fragen, ed. Marga Reis and Inger Rosengren, 263–288. Tübingen: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  47. Selting, Margret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann. 2009. Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, John W., Julia Chase, and Anna Katz Lieblich. 1981. Tongue showing: A facial display of humans and other primate species. In Nonverbal communication, interaction and gesture, ed. Adam Kendon, Thomas A. Sebeok, and Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 509–548. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  49. Stevanovic, Melisa. 2013. Managing participation in interaction: The case of humming. Text and Talk 33 (1): 113–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Streeck, Jürgen. 1996. How to do things with things: Objets trouvés and symbolization. Human Studies 19: 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014. Deixis in der face-to-face-Interaktion. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  54. Wagner, Petra, Zofia Malisz, and Stefan Kopp. 2014. Gesture and speech in interaction: An overview. Speech Communication 57: 209–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958 [1953]. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations