Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Embodied Noticings as Repair Initiations: On Multiactivity in Choir Rehearsals

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Complexity of Interaction

  • 207 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents a conversation analytic study of a collection of 79 cases where a singer of a choir visibly orients to something in the singing being problematic and deviating from expectations. These embodied noticings most often target the producer’s own mistakes (self-initiation of repair), but sometimes also a fellow singer’s (other-initiation of repair). The noticings/repair initiations are produced while the (rest of the) choir sings, and thus, the cases involve multiactivity (hence providing an example of complexity of interaction): the two activities—singing and orienting to a mistake—can progress in parallel or be mutually exclusive. The analysis focuses on the orders of multiactivity as well as the nature of the noticing/repair initiating action (e.g., its response relevance) in the context of the collective activity of choir rehearsal.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    The four rows are, from top to down, for sopranos, altos, tenors, and basses. All these rows are sung simultaneously, proceeding from left to right. The parts that are written between each of the vertical lines (i.e., the bar lines) last equally long (e.g., in Fig. 4.5, there are three parts that each last equally long). The examples presented here vary in the combination of voices (sopranos, altos, tenors, basses); there may be up to eight different voices sung simultaneously.

  2. 2.

    In the images where arrows are used, blue arrows denote movements of body parts (here, hand). Yellow arrows are used for the direction of gaze (not used in this example).

  3. 3.

    In this example (and the following ones), I apply the Jeffersonian transcription system for talk (Jefferson 2004) and singing, and the Mondada system for embodied conduct (Mondada 2019). Additional symbols used here are “♫” for singing and “♪” for speech with singing-like rhythm and/or melody. To be also noted here is that in this extract the choir (CHO) sings a double-choir piece. Only the singing of choir 1 (CH1) is transcribed here, which is the choir that Pekka belongs to. “CH1B” (e.g., line 6) refers to the basses of choir 1. CON refers to the conductor.

  4. 4.

    Repair initiations produced by the conductor are out of the scope of the present paper; the data suggest that the array of repairables that the conductor orients to is wider (e.g., intensity, being in tune, interpretative nuances, etc.).

References

  • Balantani, Angeliki. 2022. “Non-lexical vocalisations + “so_was” as a multimodal package in establishing joint decisions in music rehearsals.” Language & Communication 87: 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dingemanse, Mark, Francisco Torreira, and Nick J. Enfield. 2013. “Is ‘huh?’ A universal word? Conversational infrastructure and the convergent evolution of linguistic items.” PLoS ONE 8 (11): e78273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew, Paul. 1997. “‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 28: 69–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Kathryn. 2018. The social organisation of the choir rehearsal: How interaction between conductor and choir is used to shape the choir's singing. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, Kathryn, Victoria Williamson, and Ray Wilkinson. 2019. “Once more, with feeling: Conductors’ use of assessments and directives to provide feedback in choir rehearsals.” Musicae Scientiae 23 (3): 362–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1978. “Response cries.” Language 54 (4): 787–815.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, Marjorie H. 1997. “Byplay: Negotiating evaluation in storytelling.” In Towards a social science of language, ed. by Gregory R. Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, and John Baugh, 77–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Haakana, Markku. 2011. “Mitä ja muut avoimet korjausaloitteet [Mitä (‘what’) and other open class repair initiators in Finnish interactions].” Virittäjä (1): 36–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haakana, Markku, and Salla Kurhila. 2009. “Other-correction in everyday interaction: some comparative aspects.” In Talk in interaction: Comparative dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 152–179. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

    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. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 3–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helisten, Marika. 2019. “Disjunctively positioned problem-noticings in managing multiactivity.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (4): 318–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Gail. 1987. “On exposed and embedded correction in conversation.” In Talk and social organization, ed. by Graham Button, and J.R.E. Lee, 86–100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. by Gene Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, Gail. 2007. “Preliminary notes on abdicated other-correction.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 445–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamunen, Antti. 2019a. “How to disengage: Suspension, body torque, and repair.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 52 (4): 406–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamunen, Antti. 2019b. Busy embodiments: The hierarchisation of activities in multiactivity situations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oulu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keevallik, Leelo. 2018. Sequence initiation or self-talk? Commenting on the surroundings while mucking out a sheep stable. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (3): 313–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keisanen, Tiina. 2012. ““Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction.” Semiotica 191 (1–4): 197–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, Mardi. 2005. “Gaze as social control: How very young children differentiate ‘the look’ from a ‘mere look’ by their adult caregivers.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 38 (4): 417–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidwell, Mardi. 2009. “Gaze shift as an interactional resource for very young children.” Discourse Processes 46: 145–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koole, Tom. 2007. “Parallel activities in the classroom.” Language and Education 21 (6): 487–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurhila, Salla. 2001. “Correction in talk between native and non-native speaker.” Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1083–1110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurhila, Salla. 2006. Second Language Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kääntä, Leila. 2014. “From noticing to initiating correction: Students’ epistemic displays in instructional interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 66: 86–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laanesoo, Kirsi, and Leelo Keevallik. 2017. “Noticing breaches with nonpolar interrogatives: Estonian Kes (“who”) ascribing responsibility for problematic conduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 50 (3): 286–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitinen, Lea. 1995. “Nollapersoona [Zero person].” Virittäjä 99 (3): 337–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laitinen, Lea. 2006. “Zero person in Finnish. A grammatical resource for construing human reference.” In Grammar from the human perspective: Case, space and person in Finnish, ed. by Marja-Liisa Helasvuo, and Lyle Campbell, 209–231. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, Jean, and Étienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtimaja, Inkeri. 2012. Puheen suuntia luokkahuoneessa. Oppilaat osallistujina yläkoulun suomi toisena kielenä -tunnilla [Directions of talk in the classroom: student participation during Finnish as a second language lessons in secondary school]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, Jay L. 1990. Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, Gene H. 1993. “Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation.” Text 13 (3): 213–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilja, Niina. 2010. Ongelmista oppimiseen. Toisen aloittamat korjausjaksot kakkoskielisessä keskustelussa [Other-initiated repair sequences in Finnish second language interactions]. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 146. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markee, Numa. 2005. “The organization of off-task talk in second language classrooms.” In Applying conversation analysis, ed. by Keith Richards, and Paul Seedhouse, 197–213. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Cathrin, and Fritjof Sahlström. 2010. “Learning as longitudinal interactional change: From other-repair to self-repair in physiotherapy treatment.” Discourse Processes 47 (8): 668–697.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merlino, Sara. 2014. “Singing in “another” language: How pronunciation matters in the organisation of choral rehearsals.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 420–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. “The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations.” In Embodied interaction, ed. by Charles Goodwin, Curtis LeBaron, and Jürgen Streeck, 207–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, Lorenza. 2012. “Talking and driving: Multi-activity in the car.” Semiotica 191 (1–4): 223–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. “The temporal orders of multiactivity.” In Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 33–75. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mondada, Lorenza. 2019. Conventions for multimodal transcription. Retrieved from: https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription.

  • Mortensen, Kristian. 2016. “The body as a resource for other-initiation of repair: Cupping the hand behind the ear.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49 (1): 34–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishida, Hiroko, and Daisuke Yokomori. 2018. “Stopping/restarting play during string quartet rehearsals: An ethnographic approach to performance analysis.” Studies in Languages and Cultures 40: 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nishizaka, Aug. 2006. “What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39 (2): 119–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oittinen, Tuire. 2020. “Noticing-prefaced recoveries of the interactional space in a video-mediated business meeting.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality 3 (3): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oloff, Florence. 2018. ““Sorry?”/“Como?”/“Was?”—Open class and embodied repair initiators in international workplace interactions.” Journal of Pragmatics 126: 29–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parton, Katharine. 2014. “Epistemic stance in orchestral interaction.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 402–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilnick, Alison, Rebecca O'Brien, Suzanne Beeke, Sarah Goldberg, and Rowan Harwood. 2021. “Avoiding repair, maintaining face: Responding to hard-to-interpret talk from people living with dementia in the acute hospital.” Social Science & Medicine 282: 114156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauniomaa, Mirka, Esko Lehtonen, and Heikki Summala. 2018. “Noticings with instructional implications in post‐licence driver training.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28: 326–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, Darren, and Beatrice Szczepek Reed. 2014. “The emergence of learnables in music masterclasses.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 446–467.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlström, Fritjof. 1999. Up the hill backwards: On interactional constraints and affordances for equity-constitution in the classrooms of the Swedish comprehensive school. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, Mi-Suk, and Irene Koshik. 2010. “A conversation analytic study of gestures that engender repair in ESL conversational tutoring.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2219–2239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siitonen, Pauliina, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Tiina Keisanen. 2021. “Language and the moving body: Directive actions with the Finnish kato “look” in nature-related activities.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 661–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevanovic, Melisa. 2017. “Managing compliance in violin instruction: The case of the Finnish clitic particles -pA and -pAs in imperatives and hortatives.” In Imperative turns at talk: The design of directives in action, ed. by Marja-Leena Sorjonen, Liisa Raevaara, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 357–380. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevanovic, Melisa. 2020. “Mobilizing student compliance: On the directive use of Finnish second-person declaratives and interrogatives during violin instruction.” In Mobilizing others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities, ed. by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato, 115–145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevanovic, Melisa, and Anssi Peräkylä. 2012. “Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose and decide.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 297–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoeckl, Hartmut and Monika Messner. 2021. “Tam pam pam pam and mi–fa–sol: constituting musical instructions through multimodal interaction in orchestra rehearsals.” Multimodal Communication 10 (3): 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suomalainen, Karita, and Mikael Varjo. 2020. “When personal is interpersonal. Organizing interaction with deictically open personal constructions in Finnish everyday conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 168: 98–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed, and Elizabeth Haddon. 2013. “NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuits of learnables in vocal masterclasses.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (1): 22–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolins, Jackson. 2013. “Assessment and direction through nonlexical vocalizations in music instruction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (1): 47–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veronesi, Daniela. 2014. “Correction sequences and semiotic resources in ensemble music workshops: the case of Conduction®.” Social Semiotics 24 (4): 468–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, Peter. 1996. “A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: An analysis of correction talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (3): 247–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger, Étienne. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

My warmest thanks to the recorded choir for enabling this research by letting me record the rehearsals for research purposes. I also wish to thank the editor team, members of the COACT research community at the University of Oulu, as well as the anonymous reviewers for most helpful comments on earlier drafts of the article, which have greatly aided me in improving the analysis.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Humanities, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland

    Anna Vatanen

  2. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

    Anna Vatanen

Authors
  1. Anna Vatanen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna Vatanen .

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

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

Vatanen, A. (2023). Embodied Noticings as Repair Initiations: On Multiactivity in Choir Rehearsals. 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_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30727-0_4

  • 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