1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Language and Dialogue
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Writing in interaction
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this article, we set out to examine how participants organize their note-taking while engaged in multiparty interaction. We first describe the collective display of affiliation as an interactional practice that allows note-takers to identify recordables and to legitimize their writing. We then focus on the use of examples () and parentheses in the written notes. While style guides recommend the use of examples and parentheses to indicate subsidiary information, we describe the interactional history that leads to such scriptorial practices in collaborative writing. The analyses show that both examples and parentheses may originate from various interactional practices (e.g. listing, instruction, epistemic disputes) and that they may relate to highly salient topics of the interaction. We use the methods developed in conversation analysis, which we extend to the analysis of multimodal phenomena of interaction.

© 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.1.04des
2016-05-19
2025-04-27

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.1.04des
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arminen, Ilkka
    1998 Therapeutic Interaction: A Study of Mutual Help in the Meetings of Alcoholic Anonymous. Helsinki: Finnish Foundation for Alcoholic Studies.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bülow, Pia H
    2004 “Sharing Experiences of Contested Illness by Storytelling.” Discourse & Society15 (1): 33–53. doi: 10.1177/0957926504038943
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504038943 [Google Scholar]
  3. Cislaru, Georgeta
    (ed) 2015 Writing(s) at the Crossroads. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.194
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.194 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clark, Herbert H. , and Edward F. Schaefer
    1989 “Contributing to Discourse.” Cognitive Science13: 259–294. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_7 [Google Scholar]
  5. De Gaulmyn, Marie-Madeleine , Robert Bouchard , and Alan Rabatel
    (eds) 2001 Le processus rédactionnel. Écrire à plusieurs voix. Paris: L’Harmattan.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. De Stefani, Elwys , and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
    2008 “Topical and Sequential Backlinking in a French Radio Phone-in Program. Turn Shapes and Sequential Placements.” Pragmatics18 (3): 381–406. doi: 10.1075/prag.18.3.02ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.3.02ste [Google Scholar]
  7. De Stefani, Elwys , and Paul Sambre
    . Submitted. “De la définition aux pratiques définitoires: l’interaction autour du syndrome de fatigue chronique dans un groupe d’entraide”, Langages.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Egbert, Maria
    1993 Schisming: The Transformation from a Single Conversation to Multiple Conversations. PhD Thesis. University of California: Los Angeles.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Fukuda, Keiji , et al.
    1994 The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Comprehensive Approach to its Definition and Study.”Annals of Internal Medicine121: 953–959. doi: 10.7326/0003‑4819‑121‑12‑199412150‑00009
     https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-12-199412150-00009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodwin, Charles
    1987 “Forgetfulness as an Interactional Resource.” Social Psychology Quarterly50 (29): 115–130. doi: 10.2307/2786746
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2786746 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grue, Jan
    2014a “A Garden of Forking Paths: A Discourse Perspective on ‘Myalgic Encephalomyelitis’ and ‘Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’.” Critical Discourse Studies11 (1): 35–48. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2013.829114
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2013.829114 [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014b “Technically Disabled, Ill for all Practical Purposes? Myalgic Encephalopathy/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Discourse in Norway.” Disability & Society29 (2): 213–223. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2013.796876
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.796876 [Google Scholar]
  14. Guise, Jennifer , Chris McVittie , and Andy McKinlay
    2010 “A Discourse Analytic Study of ME/CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) Sufferers’ Experiences of Interactions with Doctors.” Journal of Health Psychology15 (3): 426–435. doi: 10.1177/1359105309350515
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309350515 [Google Scholar]
  15. Guise, Jennifer , Sue Widdicombe , and Andy McKinlay
    2007 “‘What is it Like to Have ME?’: The Discursive Construction of ME in Computer-mediated Communication and Face-to-face Interaction.” Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine11 (1): 87–108. doi: 10.1177/1363459307070806
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1363459307070806 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hepburn, Alexa , and Galina B. Boden
    2013 “The Conversation Analytic Approach to Transcription.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 57–76. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Assessment Sequences.” Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  18. Horton-Salway, Mary
    2001 “Narrative Identities and the Management of Personal Accountability in Talk about ME: A Discursive Psychology Approach.” Journal of Health Psychology6 (2): 247–259. doi: 10.1177/135910530100600210
     https://doi.org/10.1177/135910530100600210 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2002 “Bio-psycho-social Reasoning in GP’s Case Narratives: The Discursive Construction of ME Patients’ Identities.” Health. An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness and Medicine6 (4): 401–421. doi: 10.1177/136345930200600401
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136345930200600401 [Google Scholar]
  20. Jakobs, Eva-Maria , and Daniel Perrin
    (eds) 2014 Handbook of Writing and Text Production. Berlin: De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110220674
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110220674 [Google Scholar]
  21. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  22. Kendon, Adam
    2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  23. Klein, Wolf Peter , and Marthe Grund, M
    1997 “Die Geschichte der Auslassungspunkte: Zu Entstehung, Form und Funktion der deutschen Interpunktion.” Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik25: 24–44. doi: 10.1515/zfgl.1997.25.1.24
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zfgl.1997.25.1.24 [Google Scholar]
  24. Knauth, Bettina , and Stephan Wolff
    1991 “Zur Fruchtbarkeit der Konversationsanalyse für die Untersuchung schriftlicher Texte.” Zeitschrift für Soziologie20 (1): 36–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Komter, Martha L
    2006 “From Talk to Text: The Interactional Construction of a Police Record.” Research on Language and Social Interaction39 (3): 201–228. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lerner, Gene H
    1991 “On the Syntax of Sentences-in-progress.” Language in Society20: 441–458. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500016572
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500016572 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindström, Anna , and Marja-Leena Sorjonen
    2013 “Affiliation in Conversation.” InThe Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell , and Tanya Stivers , 350–369. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lund, Kristine , Gregory Dyke , and Jean-Jacques Girardot
    2009 “Multimodal Reformulation during Shared Synchronous Note-taking and its Potential Pedagogical Consequences for Teachers and Students.” InActes du colloque “Echanger pour apprendre en ligne”, Grenoble, 4-6June 2009, ed. by Develotte, Christine , François Mangenot , and Elke Nissen . epal.u-grenoble3.fr/actes/pdf/epal2009-lund-et-al.pdf (accessed28 October 2015).
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Meehan, Albert J
    1986 “Record-keeping Practices in the Policing of Juveniles.” Urban Life15 (1): 70–102.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Mondada, Lorenza
    2011 “The Interactional Production of Multiple Spatialities within a Participatory Democracy Meeting.” Social Semiotics21 (2): 289–316. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2011.548650
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2011.548650 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2014 “The Temporal Orders of Multiactivity: Operating and Demonstrating in the Surgical Theatre.” InMultiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Haddington, Pentti , Tiina Keisanen , Lorenza Mondada , and Maurice Nevile , 33–75. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.187.02mon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.02mon [Google Scholar]
  32. Mulkay, Michael
    1986 “Conversations and Texts.” Human Studies9 (2/3): 303–321. doi: 10.1007/BF00148133
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148133 [Google Scholar]
  33. 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]
  34. Pétillon-Boucheron, Sabine
    2002 Les détours de la langue: Étude sur la parenthèse et le tiret double. Paris/Louvain: Peeters.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Pitsch, Karola
    2007 “Koordinierung von parallelen Aktivitäten. Zum Anfertigen von Mitschriften im Schulunterricht.” InKoordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, ed. by Reinhold Schmitt , 411–446. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Renkema, Jan
    2008 Schrijfwijzer. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Sachs, Lisbeth
    2001 “From a Lived Body to a Medicalized Body: Diagnostic Transformation and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.” Medical Anthropology19 (4): 299–317. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2001.9966180
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2001.9966180 [Google Scholar]
  39. Sacks, Harvey , Emanuel A. Schegloff , and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation.” Language50: 696–735. doi: 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  40. Schegloff, Emanuel A
    1982 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and other Things that Come Between Sentences.” InAnalyzing Discourse: Text and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen , 71–93. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Steensig, Jakob , and Paul Drew
    2008 “Introduction: Questioning and Affiliation/Disaffiliation In interaction.” Discourse Studies10 (1): 5–15. doi: 10.1177/1461445607085581
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607085581 [Google Scholar]
  42. Stivers, Tanya
    2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction41 (1): 31–57. doi: 10.1080/08351810701691123
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123 [Google Scholar]
  43. Stivers, Tayan , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jakob Steensig , 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  44. The Chicago Manual of Style. www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ (accessed30 October 2015).
     [Google Scholar]
  45. The Oxford English Dictionary, www.oed.com/ (accessed30 October 2015).
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Tucker, Ian
    2004 “‘Stories’ of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: An Exploratory Discursive Psychological Analysis.” Qualitative Research in Psychology1: 153–167. doi: 10.1191/1478088704qp008oa
     https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088704qp008oa [Google Scholar]
  47. Tusting, Karin
    2010 “Eruptions and Interruptions: Managing Tensions between Writing and other Tasks in a Textualized Childcare Workplace.” InThe Anthropology of Writing: Understanding Textually Mediated Worlds, ed. by David Barton , and Uta Papen , 67–98. Continuum: London.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Van Charldorp, Tessa C
    2014 “‘What Happened?’ From Talk to Text in Police Interrogations.” Language & Communication36: 7–24. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2014.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Dale
    2005 Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Wojcik, Woitek , David Armstrong , and Richard Kanaan
    2011 “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Labels, Meanings and Consequences.” Journal of Psychosomatic Research70 (6): 500–504. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.02.002 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.6.1.04des
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): affiliation; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; conversation analysis; examples; multiparty interaction; mutual-help groups; note-taking; parentheses

Most Cited

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