Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In this paper I use a conversation analytic approach to investigate how participants in a meeting held remotely via Zoom use embodied action to solicit selection as next speaker. When hand raising is not immediately successful, participants use embodied actions to withdraw, modify, upgrade, downgrade or reissue gestures in pursuit of selection as next speaker. Due to the technological affordances and limitations of the remote meeting environment, participants’ gestures and hand positions differ from what would typically occur in face-to-face interaction, resulting in frequent gestures near the face that provide for both visibility to the Zoom audience and easy transition to a raised hand position when necessary. I discuss these results in terms of our understanding of how technologically mediated virtual interaction through the internet impacts the use of embodied action, and how participants coordinate their embodied action and responses to it with turn taking and sequence completion.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Auer, Peter
    2014 “There’s no harm in glossing (but a need for a better understanding of the status of transcripts.” Research on Language and Social Interaction47(1): 17–22. 10.1080/08351813.2014.871795
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.871795 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayaß, Ruth
    2015 “Doing data: The status of transcripts in conversation analysis.” Discourse Studies17(5): 508–528. 10.1177/1461445615590717
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615590717 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barnes, Rebecca
    2007 “Formulations and the facilitation of common agreement in meetings talk.” Text & Talk27(3): 273–296. 10.1515/TEXT.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  4. Birlik, Seval and Jagdish Kaur
    2020 “BELF expert users: Making understanding visible in internal BELF meetings through the use of nonverbal communication strategies.” English for Specific Purposes581(2020): 1–14. 10.1016/j.esp.2019.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2019.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bush, Robert A. Baruch and Joseph P. Folger
    2005The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 2012 “Mediation and social justice: Risks and opportunities.” Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution27(1): 1–52.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bush, Robert A. Baruch and Sally Ganong Pope
    2002 “Changing the quality of conflict interaction: The principles and practice of transformative mediation.” Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal31: 67–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Button, Graham
    1987 “Moving out of closings.” In: Talk and Social Organisation, ed. byGraham Button, and J. R. E. Lee, 101–151. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781800418226‑007
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418226-007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cibulka, Paul
    2015 “When the hands do not go home: A micro-study of the role of gesture phases in sequence suspension and closure.” Discourse Studies17(1): 3–24. 10.1177/1461445614557756
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614557756 [Google Scholar]
  10. Drew, Paul and John Heritage
    (eds) 1992Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ford, Cecilia E. and Trina Stickle
    2012 “Securing recipiency in workplace meetings: Multimodal practices.” Discourse Studies14(1): 11–30. 10.1177/1461445611427213
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427213 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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 Pragmatics1701(2020): 364–80. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.022 [Google Scholar]
  13. Garcia, Angela Cora and Erik Cleven
    . n.d. “How reflection works in transformative dialogue/mediation: A preliminary investigation.” (unpublished paper, under review)
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Garcia, Angela Cora, and Jennifer Baker Jacobs
    1998 “The interactional organization of computer mediated communication in the college classroom.” Qualitative Sociology21(3): 299–317. 10.1023/A:1022146620473
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022146620473 [Google Scholar]
  15. Garcia, Angela Cora and Jennifer Baker Jacobs
    1999 “Eyes of the beholder: Understanding the turn-taking system in quasi-synchronous computer-mediated communication.” Research on Language and Social Interaction32(4): 337–369. 10.1207/S15327973rls3204_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973rls3204_2 [Google Scholar]
  16. Garcia, Angela Cora
    2023An Introduction to Interaction: Understanding Talk in the Workplace and Everyday Life. London: Bloomsbury Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodwin, Charles
    1984 “Notes on story structure and the organization of participation.” In: Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 225–246. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heath, Christian and Paul Luff
    1992 “Media space and communicative asymmetries: Preliminary observations of video-mediated interaction.” Human-Computer Interaction7(3): 315–346. 10.1207/s15327051hci0703_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0703_3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Heath, Christian, Paul Luff, and Marcus Sanchez Svensson
    2007 “Video and qualitative research: Analysing medical practice and interaction.” Medical Education41(1): 109–116. 10.1111/j.1365‑2929.2006.02641.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02641.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Heath, Christian and Lorenza Mondada
    2019 “Transparency and embodied action: Turn organization and fairness in complex institutional environments.” Social Psychology Quarterly82(3): 274–302. 10.1177/0190272519843303
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519843303 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jefferson, Gail
    1984 “Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgment tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mmhm’.” Papers in Linguistics17(2): 197–206. 10.1080/08351818409389201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” In: Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  24. Kääntä, Leila
    2012 “Teachers’ embodied allocations in instructional interaction.” Classroom Discourse3(2): 166–186. 10.1080/19463014.2012.716624
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2012.716624 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kaukomaa, Timo, Anssi Peräkylä, and Johanna Ruusuvuori
    2014 “Foreshadowing a problem: Turn-opening frowns in conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics711(2014): 132–147. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kendon, Adam
    2004Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lerner, Gene H. and Geoffrey Raymond
    2021 “Body trouble: Some sources of difficulty in the progressive realization of manual action.” Research on Language and Social Interaction54(3): 277–298. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1936994
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1936994 [Google Scholar]
  28. Licoppe, Christian
    2017a “Skype appearances, multiple greetings and ‘coucou’: The sequential organization of video-mediated conversation openings.” Pragmatics27(3): 351–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2017b “Showing objects in Skype video-mediated conversations: From showing gestures to showing sequences.” Journal of Pragmatics1101(2017): 63–82. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2021 “The politics of visuality and talk in French courtroom proceedings with video links and remote participants.” Journal of Pragmatics1781(2021): 363–377. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.023 [Google Scholar]
  31. Licoppe, Christian and Julien Morel
    2012 “Video-in-interaction: ‘Talking heads’ and the multimodal organization of mobile and Skype video calls.” Research on Language & Social Interaction45(4): 399–429. 10.1080/08351813.2012.724996
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724996 [Google Scholar]
  32. Lopez-Ozieblo, Renia
    2018 “Disagreeing without a ‘no’: How teachers indicate disagreement in a Hong Kong classroom.” Journal of Pragmatics1371(2018): 1–18. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  33. Luff, Paul
    2016 “Embedded reference: Translocating gestures in video-mediated interaction.” Research on Language & Social Interaction49(4): 342–361. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1199088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1199088 [Google Scholar]
  34. Luff, Paul and Christian Heath
    2012 “Some ‘technical challenges’ of video analysis: Social actions, objects, material realities and the problems of perspective.” Qualitative Research12(3): 255–79. 10.1177/1468794112436655
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112436655 [Google Scholar]
  35. Luff, Paul, Menisha Patel, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Christian Heath
    2014 “Assembling collaboration: Informing the design of interaction spaces.” Research on Language & Social Interaction47(3): 317–329. 10.1080/08351813.2014.925680
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925680 [Google Scholar]
  36. Markaki, Vassiliki and Lorenza Mondada
    2012 “Embodied orientations towards co-participants in multinational meetings.” Discourse Studies14(1): 31–52. 10.1177/1461445611427210
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427210 [Google Scholar]
  37. Mondada, Lorenza
    2007 “Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers.” Discourse Studies9(2): 194–225. 10.1177/1461445607075346
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075346 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2009 “Video recording practices and the reflexive constitution of the interactional order: Some systematic uses of the split-screen technique.” Human Studies32(1): 67–99. 10.1007/s10746‑009‑9110‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-009-9110-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2013 “Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates.” Journal of Pragmatics461(2013): 39–68. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2018 “Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality.” Research on Language and Social Interaction51(1): 85–106. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mortensen, Kristian
    2016 “The body as a resource for other-initiation of repair: Cupping the hand behind the ear.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49(1): 34–57. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1126450
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126450 [Google Scholar]
  42. Olbertz-Siitonen, Margarethe, and Arja Piirainen-Marsh
    2021 “Coordinating action in technology-supported shared tasks: Virtual pointing as a situated practice for mobilizing a response.” Language & Communication791: 1–21. 10.1016/j.langcom.2021.03.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2021.03.005 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred-dispreferred turn shapes.” In: Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Rossi, Giovanni
    2018 “Composite social actions: The case of factual declaratives in everyday interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction51(4): 379–397. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524562 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sacks, Harold
    1972 “An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology.” In: Studies in Social Interaction, ed. byDavid Sudnow, 31–74. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Sacks, Harvey
    1992Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, UK and Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    2002 “Home position.” Gesture2(2): 133–146. 10.1075/gest.2.2.02sac
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.2.2.02sac [Google Scholar]
  48. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language50(4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Sahlström, Fritjof J.
    2002 “The interactional organization of hand raising in classroom interaction.” Journal of Classroom Interaction37(2): 47–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Satar, Müge H.
    2016 “Meaning-making in online language learner interactions via desktop videoconferencing.” ReCALL28(3): 305–325. 10.1017/S0958344016000100
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344016000100 [Google Scholar]
  51. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1984 “On some gestures’ relation to talk.” In: Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 266–296. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2000 “Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation.” Language in Society29(1): 1–63. 10.1017/S0047404500001019
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001019 [Google Scholar]
  53. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up closings.” Semiotica8(4): 289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  54. Stukenbrock, Anja
    2009 “Herausforderungen der multimodalen Transkription: Methodische und theoretische Überlegungen aus der wissenschaftlichen Praxis.” [“Challenges of multimodal transcription. Methodical and theoretical considerations from scientific practice.”] In: Die Arbeit mit Transkripten in Fortbildung, Lehre und Forschung, ed. byKarin Birkner and Anja Stukenbrock, 144–169. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Streeck, Jürgen
    2009a “Forward-gesturing.” Discourse Processes46(2–3): 161–179. 10.1080/01638530902728793
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728793 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2009bGesturecraft: The Manu-facture of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/gs.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.2 [Google Scholar]
  57. Tuncer, Sylvaine, Oskar Lindwall, and Barry Brown
    2021 “Making time: Pausing to coordinate video instructions and practical tasks.” Symbolic Interaction44(3): 603–631. 10.1002/symb.516
    https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.516 [Google Scholar]
  58. Weigand, Edda
    2010Dialogue. The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2021 “Language and dialogue in philosophy and science.” Intercultural Pragmatics18(4): 533–561. 10.1515/ip‑2021‑4005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2021-4005 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2023 “Principles of New Science Dialogue between science and philosophy.” Language and Dialogue13(1): 26–50. 10.1075/ld.00142.wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00142.wei [Google Scholar]
  61. Zouinar, Moustafa and Julia Velkovska
    2017 “Talking about things: Image-based topical talk and intimacy in video-mediated family communication.” Pragmatics27(3): 387–418.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conversation analysis; embodied action; gesture; hand raising; online; turn taking; virtual
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error