1887
Writing in interaction
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This article, introducing the special issue, aims at sketching the emerging field of studies on within an ethnomethodological (EM) and conversation analytic (CA) perspective. It does so by situating research carried out in this perspective within the existing literature and by offering some larger input on how the field could be developed. Writing-in-interaction is here approached by considering , with a special emphasis on handwriting. The paper presents current studies and further possible developments of writing in interaction, including the detailed analysis of video fragments. It shows how it is possible to finely analyze the moment-by-moment organization of writing as a multimodal social practice, demonstrating its embodied projectability, its material and multimodal graphic achievement, and its embeddedness in sequential organization and in multiactivity.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon
2016-05-19
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alamargot, Denis , Sylvie Plane , Eric Lambert , and David Chesnet
    2010 “Using Eye and Pen Movements to Trace the Development of Writing Expertise: Case Studies of a 7th, 9th and 12th Grader, Graduate student, and Professional Writer.” Reading and Writing23: 853–888 doi: 10.1007/s11145‑009‑9191‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9191-9 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asmuss, Birte , and Sae Oshima
    2012 “Negotiation of Entitlement in Proposal Sequences.” Discourse Studies14: 67–86. doi: 10.1177/1461445611427215
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215 [Google Scholar]
  3. Basso, Keith
    1974 “The Ethnography of Writing.” InExplorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. by Richard Bauman , and Joel Sherzer . 423–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bazerman, Charles
    (ed) 2007Handbook of Research on Writing: History, Society, School, Individual, Text. New York: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 1988Shaping written knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellemin-Noël, Jean , and Oscar Vladislas de Lubicz Milosz
    1972Le Texte et l’avant-texte: Les brouillons d’un poème de Milosz. [The text and the avant-texte: The drafts of a poem by Milosz] Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bereiter, Carl , and Marlene Scardamalia
    1987The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, Douglas
    1988Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  9. Blommaert, Jan
    2008Grassroots Literacy: Writing, Identity and Voice in Central Africa. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bouchard, Robert , and Lorenza Mondada
    (eds) 2005Les processus de la rédaction collaborative, [The process of collaborative writing]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chafe, Wallace , and Jane Danielewicz
    1990 “Properties of Spoken and Written Language”. InComprehending Oral and Written Language. ed. by Rosalind Horowitz and S. Jay Samuels , 83–113. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cibulka, Paul
    2013 “The Writing Hand: Some Interactional Workings of Writing Gestures in Japanese Conversation.” Gesture13: 166–192. doi: 10.1075/gest.13.2.03cib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.13.2.03cib [Google Scholar]
  13. De Stefani, Elwys , Paul Sambre and Dorien Van De Mieroop
    . This issue.
  14. Deppermann, Arnulf , Reinhold Schmitt , and Lorenza Mondada
    2010 “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 1700–1718. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  15. Deppman, Jed , Daniel Ferrer , and Michael Groden
    (eds) 2004Genetic Criticism: Texts and Avant-Textes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Drew, Paul
    2006 “When Documents ‘Speak’: Documents, Language and Interaction.” InTalk and Interaction in Social Research Methods, ed. by Paul Drew , Geoffrey Raymond , and Darin Weinberg , 63–80. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781849209991.n5
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849209991.n5 [Google Scholar]
  17. Everett, Yayoi Uno
    2007 “Calligraphy and musical gestures in the late works of Chou Wen-chung”. Contemporary Music Review, 26: 569–584. doi: 10.1080/07494460701652988
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07494460701652988 [Google Scholar]
  18. Fayol, Michel
    1999 “From On-Line Management Problems to Strategies in Written Production.” InThe Cognitive Demands of Writing: Processing Capacity and Working Memory Effects in Text Production, ed. by Mark Torrance and Gaynor Jeffery , 13–23. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fenoglio, Irène
    2010 “Conceptualisation linguistique: Du manuscrit au texte: Contribution à l’étude des spécificités de l’écriture scientifique.” [Linguistic conceptualization: From manuscript to tet: Contributions to the study of the specificities of scientific writing]. Item. www.item.ens.fr/index.php?id=577246.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Flower, Linda , and John R. Hayes
    1981 “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication32: 365–387. doi: 10.2307/356600
    https://doi.org/10.2307/356600 [Google Scholar]
  21. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gaulmyn, Marie-Madeleine de , Robert Bouchard , and Alain Rabatel
    (eds) 2001Le processus rédactionnel: Écrire à plusieurs voix., [The writing process: Writing together] Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Gee, James
    1996Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse. New York: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, Stephen J
    2004 “The Primacy of Gesture: Phenomenology and the Art of Chinese Calligraphy.” Analecta HusserlianaLXXXI: 175–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodwin, Charles
    2000 “Practices of Seeing: Visual Analysis: An Ethnomethodological Approach.” InHandbook of Visual Analysis, ed. by Theo van Leeuwen , and Carey Jewitt , 157–182. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Goody, Jack , and Ian Watt
    1963 “The Consequences of Literacy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History5: 304–345 doi: 10.1017/S0010417500001730
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417500001730 [Google Scholar]
  27. Greatbatch, David , Christian Heath , Paul Luff , and Paul Campion
    1995 “Conversation Analysis: Human–Computer Interaction and the General Practice Consultation.” InPerspectives on HCI: Diverse approaches, ed. by Andrew Monk , and G. Nigel Gilbert , 199–222. London: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Greiffenhagen, Christian
    2014 “The Materiality of Mathematics: Presenting Mathematics at the Blackboard.” The British Journal of Sociology65: 502–528. doi: 10.1111/1468‑4446.12037
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12037 [Google Scholar]
  29. Grésillon, Almuth
    2001 “La critique génétique, aujourd’hui et demain.” [Genetic critique, today and tomorrow]. L’Esprit Créateur41: 9–15. doi: 10.1353/esp.2010.0141
    https://doi.org/10.1353/esp.2010.0141 [Google Scholar]
  30. Haddington, Pentti , Keisanen, Tiina , Mondada, Lorenza , Nevile, Maurice
    (eds.) 2014Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.187
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187 [Google Scholar]
  31. Harris, Roy
    1986The Origin of Writing. London: Duckworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hasenfeld, Yeheskel
    1972 “People Processing Organizations: An Exchange Approach.” American Sociological Review: 256–263. doi: 10.2307/2093466
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2093466 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hay, Louis
    1979 “La critique génétique: origine et perspectives.” [“Genetic critique: origins and perspectives”]. InEssais de critique génétique, [Essays in genetic critique], ed. by Louis Hay . Paris: Flammarion.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hazel, Spencer , and Kristian Mortensen
    2014 “Embodying the Institution: Object Manipulation in Developing Interaction in Study Counselling Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics65: 10–29. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.016 [Google Scholar]
  35. Heath, Christian
    1982 “Preserving the Consultation: Medical Record Cards and Professional Conduct.” Sociology of Health and Illness4: 56–74. doi: 10.1111/1467‑9566.ep11345612
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.ep11345612 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1986Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511628221
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628221 [Google Scholar]
  37. Heath, Christian , and Paul Luff
    1996 “Documents and Professional Practice: ‘Bad’ Organisational Reasons for ‘Good’ Clinical Records.” Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 354–363. New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/240080.240342
    https://doi.org/10.1145/240080.240342 [Google Scholar]
  38. Heath, Christian , and Gillian Nicholls
    1997 “Animated Texts: Selective Renditions of News Stories.” InDiscourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition, ed. by Lauren B. Resnick , Clotilde Pontecorvo , and Roger Säljö , 63–86. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑03362‑3_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-03362-3_4 [Google Scholar]
  39. Herring, Susan C
    2015 “New Frontiers in Interactive Multimodal Communication.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, ed. by Alexandra Georgapoulou and Tereza Spilloti , 398–402. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke
    2000Interaction and the Standardized Survey Interview. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489457
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489457 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ivanič, Roz
    2004 “Discourses of Writing and Learning to Write.” Language and Education18: 220–245. doi: 10.1080/09500780408666877
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780408666877 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jakobs, Eva-Maria , and Daniel Perrin
    (eds) 2014Handbook of Writing and Text Production. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110220674
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674 [Google Scholar]
  43. Jakonen, Teppo
    . This issue.
  44. Jönsson, Linda , and Per Linell
    1991 Story Generations: From Dialogical Interviews to Written Reports in Police Interrogations. Text11: 419–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Kameo, Nahoko , and Jack Whalen
    2015 “Organizing Documents: Standard Forms, Person Production and Organizational Action.” Qualitative Sociology38: 205–229. doi: 10.1007/s11133‑015‑9302‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-015-9302-7 [Google Scholar]
  46. Karhu, Hanna
    2012Säkeiden synty. Geneettinen tutkimus Otto Mannisen runokäsikirjoituksista. [The Genesis of Verses: A Genetic Analysis of Manuscripts of Otto Manninen]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Kellogg, Ronald T
    1996 “A model of Working Memory in Writing.” InThe Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences and Applications, ed. by C. Michale Levy , and Sarah Ransdell , 57–72. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Knorr-Cetina, Karin
    1981The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Komter, Martha
    2001 “La construction de la preuve dans un interrogatoire de police. [The construction of evidence in a police interrogation.]” Droit et société48: 367–393.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2006 “From Talk to Text: The Interactional Construction of a Police Record.” Research on Language and Social Interaction39: 201–228. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2012 “The Career of a Suspect’s Statement: Talk, Text, Context.” Discourse Studies14: 731–752. doi: 10.1177/1461445612457486
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612457486 [Google Scholar]
  52. Koshik, Irene
    2002 “A Conversation Analytic Study of Yes/No Questions Which Convey Reversed Polarity Assertions.” Journal of Pragmatics34: 1851–1877. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00057‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00057-7 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2003 “Wh-Questions Used as Challenges.” Discourse Studies5: 51–77. doi: 10.1177/14614456030050010301
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456030050010301 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kress, Gunther , and Theo Van Leeuwen
    2001Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Kress, Gunther
    2003Literacy in the New Media Age. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203164754
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203164754 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kunitz, Silvia
    2015 “Scriptlines as Emergent Artifacts in Collaborative Group Planning.” Journal of Pragmatics76: 135–149. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  57. Latour, Bruno
    1990 “Visualisation and Cognition: ‘Drawing Things Together’”. InRepresentation in Scientific Practice. ed. by Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar , 19–68. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Linell, Per
    2004The written language bias in linguistics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Luff, Paul , et al.
    2007. “Augmented Paper: Developing Relationships Between Digital Content and Paper.”InThe Disappearing Computer, Interaction Design, System Infrastructures and Applications for Smart Environments, ed. by Norbert Streitz , Achilles Kameas , and Irene Mavrommati , 275–297. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Luff, Paul , Christian Heath , Moira Norrie , Beat Signer , and Peter Herdman
    2004 “Only Touching the Surface: Creating Affinities between Digital Content and Paper.” In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 523–532. New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1031607.1031695
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031695 [Google Scholar]
  61. Luff, Paul , Karola Pitsch , Christian Heath , Peter Herdman , and Julian Wood
    2010 “Swiping Paper: The Second Hand, Mundane Artifacts, Gesture and Collaboration.” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing14: 287–299. doi: 10.1007/s00779‑009‑0253‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0253-4 [Google Scholar]
  62. Lynch, Michael
    1988 “The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences.” Human Studies11: 201–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2009 “Ethnomethodology and History: Documents and the Production of History.” Ethnographic Studies11: 87–106.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Lynch, Michael , and David Bogen
    1996The Spectacle of History: Speech, Text, and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings. Durham: Duke University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. MacArthur, Charles , Steve Graham and Jill Fitzgerald
    (eds) 2005Handbook of Writing Research. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Meehan, Albert J
    1986 “Record-Keeping Practices in the Policing of Juveniles.” Urban Life15: 70–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Mikkola, Piia , and Esa Lehtinen
    2014 “Initiating Activity Shifts Through Use of Appraisal Forms as Material Objects During Performance Appraisal Interviews.” InInteracting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity, ed. by Maurice Nevile , Pentti Haddington , Trine Heinemann , and Mirka Rauniomaa , 57–78. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.186.03mik
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.03mik [Google Scholar]
  68. Mondada, Lorenza
    2003 “Trajectoires d’objets de discours: Observer la science en train de se dire.” [Trajectories of discursive objects: observing science as emerging in talk]. Revue d’Etudes Romanes54: 31–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 2005a “‘Il faut d’abord ramasser les arguments’: La coordination de la parole-en-interaction et de l’inscription dans l’élaboration collective des topics.” [‘You have first to put together the arguments’: coordination of talk-in-interaction and of inscription within the collective elaboration of topics] InLes processus de la rédaction collaborative, [The process of collaborative writing] ed. by Robert Bouchard , and Lorenza Mondada , 131–164. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2005b “Visions controversées de la carte: construire le visible par les gestes et la parole en interaction.” InEspaces, savoirs et incertitudes. [Space, Knowledge, and Uncertainty], ed. by Elisabeth Remy , Valérie November , Cristina D’Alessandro-Scapari , and Florian Charvolin , 15–31. Paris: Belin.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 2006 “Participants’ Online Analysis and Multimodal Practices: Projecting the End of the Turn and the Closing of the Sequence. Discourse Studies8: 117–129. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059561
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059561 [Google Scholar]
  72. 2008 “Using Video for a Sequential and Multimodal Analysis of Social Interaction: Videotaping Institutional Telephone Calls.” Forum: Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research9.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 2008b “Production du savoir et interactions multimodales: Une étude de la modélisation spatiale comme activité pratique située et incarnée.” [Knowledge production and multimodal interaction: A study of space modelling as a situated and embodied practice]. Revue d’Anthropologie des connaissances2: 219–266. doi: 10.3917/rac.004.0219
    https://doi.org/10.3917/rac.004.0219 [Google Scholar]
  74. 2008c “Documenter l’articulation des ressources multimodales dans le temps: La transcription d’enregistrements vidéos d’interactions.” [“Documenting the coordination of multimodal resources in time: Transcribing video recordings of interactions”]. InDonnees orales, les enjeux de la transcription, [Spoken data: transcription issues], ed. by Mireille Bilger , 127–155. Perpignan: Presses Universitaires de Perpignan.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 2010 “Methods for Reassembling Fragmented and Mobile Geographies.” InMobile Methods, ed. by Monika Büscher , John Urry , and Katian Witchger , 138–163. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 2011 “The Interactional Production of Multiple Spatialities within a Participatory Democracy Meeting.” Social Semiotics21: 289–316. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2011.548650
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2011.548650 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2012 “Video Analysis and the Temporality of Inscriptions within Social Interaction: The Case of Architects at Work.” Qualitative Research12: 304–333. doi: 10.1177/1468794112438149
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112438149 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2014 “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics65: 137–156. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  79. 2016 “An Interactionist Perspective on the Ecology of Linguistic Practices: The Situated and Embodied Production of Talk.” InLinguistic Ecology and Language Contact, ed. by Ralph Ludwig , Steve Pagel , and Peter Mühlhäusler . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. . This issue.
  81. Monteiro, David
    . This issue.
  82. Moore, Robert J. , Jack Whalen , and E. Cabell Hankinson Gathman
    2010 “The Work of the Work Order: Document Practice in Face-to-Face Service Encounters.” InOrganisation, Interaction and Practice, ed. by Nick Llewellyn , and Jon Hindmarsh . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Mortensen, Kristian
    2013 “Writing Aloud: Some Interactional Functions of the Public Display of Emergent Writing.” Participatory Innovation Conference 2013 Lahti, Finland , 119–125.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Murphy, Keith
    2005 “Collaborative Imagining: The Interactive Use of Gestures, Talk, and Graphic Representation in Architectural Practice.” Semiotica156: 113–145.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Myers, Greg
    1990Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Nevile, Maurice
    2004 “Integrity in the Airline Cockpit: Embodying Claims about Progress for the Conduct of an Approach Briefing.” Research on Language and Social Interaction37: 447–480. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_3 [Google Scholar]
  87. Nielsen, Søren Beck
    2014 “I’ll Just See What You Had Before: Making Computer Use Relevant While Patients Present Their Problems” InInteracting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity, ed. by Maurice Nevile , Pentti Haddington , Trine Heinemann , and Mirka Rauniomaa , 79–97. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.186.04bec
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.04bec [Google Scholar]
  88. Nissi, Riikka
    2015 “From Entry Proposals to a Joint Statement: Practices of Shared Text Production in Multiparty Meeting Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics79: 1–21. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  89. Nystrand, Martin
    2005 “The Social and Historical Context of Writing Research. InHandbook of Writing Research, ed. by Charles MacArthur , Steve Graham , and Jill Fitzgerald , 11–27. New York: Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Ong, Walter J
    1982Literacy and Orality. New York: Methuen. doi: 10.4324/9780203328064
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203328064 [Google Scholar]
  91. Pälli, Pekka , and Esa Lehtinen
    2014 “Making Objectives Common in Performance Appraisal Interviews.” Language & Communication39: 92–108. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  92. Park, Innhwa
    2012 “Asking Different Types of Polar Questions: The Interplay Between Turn, Sequence, and Context in Writing Conferences.” Discourse Studies14: 613–633. doi: 10.1177/1461445612454077
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454077 [Google Scholar]
  93. 2015 “Requests: Knowledge and Entitlement in Writing Tutoring.” Language & Communication43: 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2015.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2015.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  94. Perrin, Daniel
    2013The Linguistics of Newswriting. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aals.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.11 [Google Scholar]
  95. Pitsch, Karola
    2006Sprache, Körper, Intermediäre Objekte: Zur Multimodalität der Interaktion im bilingualen Geschichtsunterricht. [“Language, the Body, and intermediary Objects: Multimodality of interaction in bilingual history lectures]. Bielefeld: Bielefeld University.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 2007 “Unterrichtskommunikation Revisited: Tafelskizzen als interaktionale Ressource.” [“School communication revisited: Sketches on the blackboard as an interactional resource”] Bulletin VALS-ASLA85: 59–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Poe, Edgar Allan
    1846 “The Philosophy of Composition.” Graham’s Magazine28: 163–167.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Prior, Paul and Julie Hengst
    (eds) 2010Exploring Semiotic Remediation as Discourse Practice. Houndsmill: Palgrave MacMillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230250628
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230250628 [Google Scholar]
  99. Prior, Paul , and Steven L. Thorne
    2014 “Research Paradigms: Beyond Product, Process, and Social Activity.” InHandbook of Writing and Text Production, ed. by Jakobs, Eva-Maria , and Daniel Perrin , 31–54. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Rauschenberg, Robert
    1953Erased De Kooning Drawing. San Francisco: San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Relieu Marc
    2006 “Remarques sur l’analyse conversationnelle et les technologies médiatisées.” [“Some remarks about conversation analysis and mediated technologies.”] Revue française de linguistique appliquée [French Journal of Applied Linguistics] 11: 17–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Robinson, Jeffrey D. , and Tanya Stivers
    2001 “Achieving Activity Transitions in Physician-Patient Encounters.” Human Communication Research27: 253–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Rosenberg, Harold
    1952 “The American Action Painters.” Art News51: 22–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Ruusuvuori, Johanna
    2001 “Looking Means Listening: Coordinating Displays of Engagement in Doctor-Patient Interaction.” Social Science & Medicine52: 1093–1108. doi: 10.1016/S0277‑9536(00)00227‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00227-6 [Google Scholar]
  105. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1998 “Body Torque.” Social Research65: 535–586.
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Schmitt, Reinhold
    2001 “Die Tafel als Arbeitsinstrument und Statusrequisite.” [The blackboard as tool of work and indicator of status]. InGesprächsforschung: Tendenzen und Perspektiven, [Discourse analysis: trends and perspectives], ed. by Zsuzsanna Iványi , and András Kertész , 221–242. Frankfurt: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Stevanovic, Melisa
    2013 “Constructing a Proposal as a Thought: A Way to Manage Problems in the Initiation of Joint Decision-Making in Finnish Workplace Interaction.” Pragmatics23: 519–544. doi: 10.1075/prag.23.3.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.23.3.07ste [Google Scholar]
  108. Streeck, Jürgen , and Werner Kallmeyer
    2001 “Interaction by Inscription.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 465–490. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00126‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00126-5 [Google Scholar]
  109. Streeck, Jürgen
    2011 “The changing meaning of things: Found objects and inscriptions in social interaction.” InEmbodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, ed. by Jürgen Streeck , Charles Goodwin , and Curtis LeBaron , 67–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Street, Brian
    1984Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 1995Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Svensson, Hanna
    2016 “Surveiller et corriger: L’accomplissement interactionnel de révisions d’inscriptions publiques.” [“To surveil and to correct. The interactional achievement of revisions of public inscriptions.”] InParticipation et asymétries dans l’interaction institutionnelle [Participation and asymmetries in institutional interactions], ed. by Lorenza Mondada , and Sara Keel . Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Svinhufvud, Kimmo
    2008 “Palaute ongelmanratkaisuna: Opponentin tekstipalaute graduseminaarissa. [The Feedback Sequence as Problem-Solving: The Opponent’s Text Feedback in the Master’s Thesis Seminar.]” Kasvatus39: 439–455.
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 2011 “Varovasti edeten ja taas perääntyen: Opponentin palautevuoron rakentuminen [Gently Forward, Then Back Again: Constructing Opponent Feedback].” Virittäjä115.2 (2011).
    [Google Scholar]
  115. . This issue.
  116. Svinhufvud, Kimmo , and Sanna Vehviläinen
    2013 “Papers, Documents, and the Opening of an Academic Supervision Encounter.” Text & Talk33: 139–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Szymanski, Margaret H
    1999 “Re-Engaging and Dis-Engaging Talk in Activity.” Language in Society28: 1–23. doi: 10.1017/S0047404599001013
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599001013 [Google Scholar]
  118. 2003 “Producing Text through Talk: Question-Answering Activity in Classroom Peer Groups.” Linguistics and Education13: 533–563. doi: 10.1016/S0898‑5898(03)00003‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(03)00003-2 [Google Scholar]
  119. Thorne, Steven L
    2012 Gaming Writing: Supervernaculars, Stylization, and Semiotic Remediation. InTechnology Across Writing Contexts and Tasks, ed. by Greg Kessler , Ana Oskoz , and Idoia Elola , 297–316. San Marcos: Calico.
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Van Charldorp, Tessa
    2011 “The Coordination of Talk and Typing in Police Interrogations.” Crossroads of Language, Interaction and Culture8: 61–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 2013 “The Intertwining of Talk and Technology: How Talk and Typing Are Combined in the Various Phases of the Police Interrogation.” Discourse & Communication7: 221–240. doi: 10.1177/1750481313476776
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313476776 [Google Scholar]
  122. Van Galen, Gerard P
    1993 “Handwriting: A developmental Perspective.” InMotor Development in Early and Later Childhood: Longitudinal Approaches, ed. by Alex F. Kalverboer , Brian Hopkins , and Reint Geuze , 143–172. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Vehviläinen, Sanna
    2009a “Problems in the Research Problem: Critical Feedback and Resistance in Academic Supervision.” Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research53: 185–201. doi: 10.1080/00313830902757592
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830902757592 [Google Scholar]
  124. 2009b “Student-Initiated Advice in Academic Supervision.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42: 163–190. doi: 10.1080/08351810902864560
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810902864560 [Google Scholar]
  125. 2012 “Question-Prefaced Advice in Feedback Sequences of Finnish Academic Supervisions.” InAdvice in Discourse, ed. by Holger Limberg , and Miriam A. Locher , 31–51. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.221.04veh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.221.04veh [Google Scholar]
  126. Waring, Hansun Zhang
    2005 “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Centre: Identity, Expertise, and Advice Resisting.” Applied Linguistics26: 141–168. doi: 10.1093/applin/amh041
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amh041 [Google Scholar]
  127. 2007 “Complex Advice Acceptance as a Resource for Managing Asymmetries.” Text & Talk27: 107–137. doi: 10.1515/TEXT.2007.005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2007.005 [Google Scholar]
  128. Watson, Rod
    2009Analysing Practical and Professional Texts: A Naturalistic Approach. Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Weilenmann, Alexandra , and Gustav Lymer
    2014 “Incidental and Essential Objects in Interaction.” InInteracting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity, ed. by Maurice Nevile , Pentti Haddington , Trine Heinemann , and Mirka Rauniomaa , 319–337. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.186.14wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186.14wei [Google Scholar]
  130. Whalen, Jack
    1995a “Expert Systems Versus Systems for Experts.” InSocial and Interactional Dimensions of Human-Computer Interfaces, ed. by Peter J. Thomas , 161–183. Cambridge: CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 1995b “A Technology of Order Production: Computer-Aided Dispatch in Public Safety Communications.” InSituated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, ed. by Paul Ten Have , and George Psathas , 187–230. Washington, DC: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Whalen, Jack , and Erik Vinkhuyzen
    2000 “Expert Systems in (Inter)action: Diagnosing Document Machine Problems over the Telephone.” InWorkplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing Systems Design, ed. by Paul Luff , Jon Hindmarsh , and Christian Heath , 92–140. Cambridge: CUP. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511628122.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628122.006 [Google Scholar]
  133. Whalen, Marilyn , and Jack Whalen
    2004 “Studying workscapes.” InDiscourse and technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis, ed. by Philip LeVine and Ron Scollon , 208–229. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Zimmerman. Don
    1992 “The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance.” InTalk at Work: Social Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage , 418–469. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): embodiment , handwriting , multiactivity , multimodality , social interaction and writing
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