Chapter published in:
Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources
Edited by Arnulf Deppermann and Jürgen Streeck
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 293] 2018
► pp. 293–324

Changes in turn-design over interactional histories – the case of instructions in driving school lessons

This paper studies how the turn-design of a highly recurrent type of action changes over time. Based on a corpus of video-recordings of German driving lessons, we consider one type of instructions and analyze how the same instructional action is produced by the same speaker (the instructor) for the same addressee (the student) in consecutive trials of a learning task. We found that instructions become increasingly shorter, indexical and syntactically less complex; interactional sequences become more condensed and activities designed to secure mutual understanding become rarer. This study shows how larger temporal frameworks of interpersonal interactional histories which range beyond the interactional sequence impinge on the recipient-design of turns and the deployment of multimodal resources in situ.
Keywords: recipient design, turn-design, interactional histories, driving lessons, conversation analysis
Published online: 13 September 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.293.09dep
References

References

Berger, Evelyne, and Pekarek Doehler, Simona
2018 Tracking Change Over Time in Storytelling Practices: A Longitudinal Study of Second Language Talk-in-Interaction. In Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, ed. by Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Wagner, Johannes, and Esther González-Martínez, 67–102. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter
2014 “Overt and Hidden Complexity – Two Types of Complexity and Their Implications”. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50 (2): 127–143.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Hidden Complexity – The Neglected Side of Complexity and Its Implications.” Linguistics Vanguard 1 (1): 177–187.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, Susan E., and Herbert H. Clark
1996 “Conceptual Pacts and Lexical Choice in Conversation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22: 1482–1493.Google Scholar
Broth, Mathias, Levin, Lena, and Jakob Cromdal
2017 “Starting Out as Driver. Progression in Instructed Pedal Work.” In Memory Practices and Learning – Interactional, Institutional and Sociocultural Perspectives, ed. by Mäkitalo, Åsa, Linell, Per, and Roger Säljö, 113–142. Charlotte NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1996a “Communities, Commonalities, and Communication.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by Gumperz, John J., and Stephen C. Levinson, 324–355. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1996b Using Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Catherine R. Marshall
1981 “Definite Reference and Mutual Knowledge.” In Elements of Discourse Understanding, ed. by Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L., and Ivan A. Sag, 10–63. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Deanna Wilkes-Gibbs
1986 “Referring as a Collaborative Process.” Cognition 22: 1–39.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Susan A. Brennan
1991 “Grounding in Communication.” In Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, ed. by Resnick, Lauren B., Levine, John M., and Stephanie D. Teasley, 127–149. Washington: APA Books.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Axel Schmidt
2016 “Partnerorientierung zwischen Realität und Imagination: Anmerkungen zu einem zentralen Konzept der Dialogtheorie.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 44 (3): 369–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, and Reinhold Schmitt
2009 ““damit sie mich verstehen”: Genese, Verfahren und recipient design einer narrativen Performance.” In Theatralität des sprachlichen Handelns, ed. by Buss, Mareike, Habscheid, Stephan, Jautz, Sabine, Liedtke, Frank, and Jan-Georg Schneider, 79–112. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2014 ““Don’t Get Me Wrong”: Recipient Design by Using Negation to Constrain an Action’s Interpretation.” In Grammar and Dialogism, ed. by Bücker, Jörg, Günthner, Susanne, and Wolfgang Imo, 15–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015a “When Recipient Design Fails: Egocentric Turn-Design of Instructions in Driving School Lessons Leading to Breakdowns of Intersubjectivity.” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 16: 63–101., http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-online​.de​/fileadmin​/dateien​/heft2015​/ga​-deppermann​.pdf, accessed June 8, 2018.Google Scholar
2015b “Retrospection and Understanding.” In Temporality in Interaction, ed. by Deppermann, Arnulf, and Susanne Günthner, 57–94. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
2016 “La définition comme action multimodale pour des enjeux pratiques: Définir pour instruire à l’auto-école.” Langages 20(4): 83–101.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 “Instructional Practices in Driving Lessons in German: Differential Uses of Declaratives and Imperatives.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2016 Designing Speech for a Recipient. The Roles of Modeling, Alignment and Feedback in So-Called “Simplified Registers”. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1979 “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by Psathas, George, 97–121. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
2017 Cooperative Action. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
2014 Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund
1995[1929]. Cartesianische Meditationen. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
1995 “Aspects of Recipient Design in Expert Advice-Giving on Call-in Radio.” Discourse Processes 19 (2): 219–238.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, Ellen A., and Herbert H. Clark
1987 “References in Conversations between Experts and Novices.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116 (1): 26–37.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per
2009 Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically: Interactional and Contextual Theories of Human Sense-Making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W.
1989 “Perspective-Display Sequences in Conversation.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 91–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza
2015 “The Facilitator’s Task of Formulating Citizens’ Proposals in Political Meetings: Orchestrating Multiple Embodied Orientations to Recipients.” Gesprächsforschung 16: 1–62., accessed June 8, 2018. http://​www​.gespraechsforschung​-online​.de​/fileadmin​/dateien​/heft2015​/ga​-mondada​.pdf.
2018 “Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51 (1), 85–106.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Evelyne Pochon-Berger
2015 “The Development of L2 Interactional Competence: Evidence from Turn-Taking Organization, Sequence Organization, Repair Organization and Preference Organization.” In Usage-Based Perspectives on Second Language Learning, ed. by Cadierno, Teresa, and Søren W. Eskildsen, 233-–267. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Virginie Fasel Lauzon
2015 “Documenting Change across Time: Longitudinal and Cross-Sectional CA Studies of Classroom Interaction.” In Handbook of Classroom Interaction, ed. by Markee, Numa, 409–424. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon
2004 “Toward a Mechanistic Psychology of Dialogue.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–225.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” In Everyday Language, ed. by Psathas, George, 15–21. New York: Center for the Study of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50(4): 696–735.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1992 Lectures on Conversation. 2 Vols. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1972 “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by Sudnow, David N., 75–119. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
1987 “Recycled Turn Beginnings: A Precise Repair Mechanism in Conversation’s Turn-Taking Organization.” In Talk and Social Organization, ed. by Button, Graham, and John Robert E. Lee, 70–85. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A.
1996 “Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics.” In Studies in Anaphora, ed. by Fox, Barbara A., 437–485. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, Alfred
1971[1945]. “On Multiple Realities.” In his Collected papers I: The Problem of Social Reality, 207–259. Den Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
1974[1932]. Der sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Selting, Margret
et al 2009 “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung – Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402. www​.gespraechsforschung​-ozs​.de​/heft2009​/px​-gat2​.pdf, accessed June 8, 2018.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack
2014 “The Architecture of Intersubjectivity Revisited.” In Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Enfield, Nick, Kockelman, Paul, and Jack Sidnell, 364–399. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, Jan
2015 “Én porsjon om gangen. Multimodal koordinering i samtaler med andrespråksbrukere.” In Det tredje språket. Multimodale studier av interkulturell kommunikasjon i kunst, skole og samfunnsliv, ed. by Engebretsen, Martin, 196–211. Kristiansand: Portal.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, Wagner, Johannes, and González-Martínez, Esther
(Eds.) 2018 Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Johannes, Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Esther González-Martínez
2018 “Longitudinal Research on the Organization of Social Interaction: Current Developments and Methodological Challenges”, In Longitudinal Studies on the Organization of Social Interaction, ed. byPekarek Doehler, Simona, Wagner, Johannes, and Esther González-Martínez, 3–35. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 12 other publications

Betz, Emma, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm & Peter Golato
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Chazal, Kirby
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 175 ff. Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf, Lorenza Mondada & Simona Pekarek Doehler
2021. Early Responses: An Introduction. Discourse Processes ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Axel Schmidt
2021. Micro-Sequential Coordination in Early Responses. Discourse Processes ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Deppermann, Arnulf & Jürgen Streeck
2018.  In Time in Embodied Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 293], ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Helmer, Henrike
2020. How Do Speakers Define the Meaning of Expressions? The Case of German x heißt y (“x means y”). Discourse Processes 57:3 ► pp. 278 ff. Crossref logo
Helmer, Henrike
2021. Humorous or occasioned instructions: Learning the “shoulder check” in theoretical and practical driving lessons. International Journal of Applied Linguistics Crossref logo
Ingebrand, Elias, Christina Samuelsson & Lars-Christer Hydén
2020. A person living with dementia learning to navigate an iPad: a case study. Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Keevallik, Leelo
2020.  In Emergent Syntax for Conversation [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 32], ► pp. 221 ff. Crossref logo
Keevallik, Leelo
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo
Khachaturyan, Maria
2020. Common Ground in Demonstrative Reference: The Case of Mano (Mande). Frontiers in Psychology 11 Crossref logo
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Veronika Drake, Andrea Golato & Emma Betz
2020.  In Mobilizing Others [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 33], ► pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 march 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.