Volume 32, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This study uses conversation analysis (CA) and video-recorded data from an international company to investigate closings in technology-mediated (i.e. distant) meetings. The focus is on the situated affordances and multimodal resources that the chair and participants deploy to transition from meeting talk to a coordinated exit. Due to restricted access to bodily-visual leave-taking behaviours, other mutually recognized practices need to be implemented to initiate and advance closings: (1) when closing is made relevant as the next step, (2) when opportunity spaces to move out of the closing emerge, and (3) when departure from the meeting needs to be negotiated. This progression requires the close coordination of co-participants’ vocal and embodied conduct in the physical setting and rendering actions publicly intelligible via the screen at specific moments. The analysis portrays closings as emergent, collaborative accomplishments, in which the import of multimodal turn constructions and (dis)aligning behaviours must be negotiated .


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Arminen, Ilkka, Christian Licoppe, and Anna Spagnolli
    2016 ”Respecifying Mediated Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 290–309. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1234614
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1234614 [Google Scholar]
  2. Asmuß, Birte, and Jan Svennevig
    2009 “Meeting Talk: An Introduction.” Journal of Business Communication45 (4): 408–429.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Boden, Deirdre
    1994The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Broth, Mathias, and Lorenza Mondada
    2012 “Walking Away: The Embodied Achievement of Activity Closings in Mobile Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics47: 41–58. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016 [Google Scholar]
  5. Button, Graham
    1991 “Conversation-in-a-Series.” InTalk & Social Structure. Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. byDeirdre Boden, and Don Zimmermann, 251–277. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1987 “Moving out of Closings.” InTalk and Social Organization, ed. byGraham Button, and John R. E. Lee, 101–151. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Deppermann, Arnold, Reinhold Schmitt, and Lorenza Mondada
    2010 “Agenda and Emergence: Contingent and Planned Activities in a Meeting.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (6): 1700–1718. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006 [Google Scholar]
  8. DiDomenico, Stephen M., and Jeffrey Boase
    2013 “Bringing Mobiles into the Conversation. Applying a Conversational Analytic Approach to the Study of Mobiles in Co-Present Interaction.” InDiscourse 2.0 Language and New Media, ed. byDeborah Tannen, and Anna M. Trester, 119–132. Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Due, Brian, and Christian Licoppe
    2020 “Video-Mediated Interaction (VMI): Introduction to a Special Issue on the Multimodal Accomplishment of VMI Institutional Activities.” Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality3 (3). 10.7146/si.v3i3.123836
    https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i3.123836 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ford, Cecilia, and Trini 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]
  11. Greiffenhagen, Christian, and Rob Watson
    2009 “Visual Repairables: Analyzing the Work of Repair in Human-Computer Interaction.” Visual Communication8 (1): 65–90. 10.1177/1470357208099148
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357208099148 [Google Scholar]
  12. Haddington, Pentti
    2019 “Leave-Taking as Multiactivity: Coordinating Conversational Closings with Driving in Cars.” Language & Communication65: 58–78. 10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2018.04.003 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hazel, Spencer, and Kristian Mortensen
    2014 “Embodying the Institution – Object Manipulation in Developing Interaction in Study Counselling Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics65: 10–29. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.016 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hazel, Spencer, Kristian Mortensen, and Gitte Rasmussen
    2014 “Introduction: A Body of Resources – CA Studies of Social Conduct.” Journal of Pragmatics65 (1): 1–9. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  15. Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff
    2000Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489839
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489839 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hjulstad, Johan
    2016 “Practices of Organizing Built Space in Videoconference-Mediated Interactions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 491–498. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1199087
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1199087 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hutchby, Ian
    2001Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 2014 “Communicative Affordances and Participation Frameworks in Mediated Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics72: 86–89. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.08.012 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  20. LeBaron, Curtis E., and Stanley E. Jones
    2002 “Closing Up Closings: Showing the Relevance of the Social and Material Surround to the Completion of Interaction.” Journal of Communication52 (3): 542–565. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02561.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Licoppe, Christian, and Laurence Dumoulin
    2010 “The ‘Curious Case’ of an Unspoken Opening Speech Act: A Video-Ethnography of the Use of Video Communication in Courtroom Activities.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43 (3), 211–231. 10.1080/08351811003741319
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351811003741319 [Google Scholar]
  22. Licoppe, Christian, and Julien Morel
    2012 “Video-in-Interaction: ‘Talking Heads’ and the Multimodal Organization of Mobile and Skype Video Calls.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (4): 399–429. 10.1080/08351813.2012.724996
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724996 [Google Scholar]
  23. Luff, Paul, Christian Heath, Naomi Yamashita, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Marina Jirotka
    2016 “Embedded Reference: Translocating Gestures in Video-Mediated Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 342–361. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1199088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1199088 [Google Scholar]
  24. Markman, Kris M.
    2009 ““So What Shall We Talk About.” Openings and Closings in Chat-Based Virtual Meetings.” Journal of Business Communication46 (1): 150–170. 10.1177/0021943608325751
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943608325751 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mlynář, Jakub, Esther González-Martínez, and Denis Lalanne
    2018 “Situated Organization of Video-Mediated Interaction: A Review of Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Studies.” Interacting with Computers30 (2): 73–84. 10.1093/iwc/iwx019
    https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwx019 [Google Scholar]
  26. Mondada, Lorenza
  27. 2006 “Participants’ Online Analysis and Multimodal Practices: Projecting the End of the Turn and the Closing of the Sequence.” Discourse Studies8 (1): 117–29. 10.1177/1461445606059561
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059561 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2011 “Interactional Space and the Study of Embodied Talk-in-Interaction.” InSpace in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives, ed. byPeter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, 247–275. Boston: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-Party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 39–68. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  30. Muñoz, Arantxa S.
    2016 “Attending Multi-Party Videoconference Meetings: The Initial Problem.” Language@Internet13.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Nevile, Maurice, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann, and Mirka Rauniomaa
    2014Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.186
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.186 [Google Scholar]
  32. Nielsen, Mie F.
    2012 “Using Artifacts in Brainstorming Sessions to Secure Participation and Decouple Sequentiality.” Discourse Studies14 (1): 87–109. 10.1177/1461445611427211
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427211 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013 “‘Stepping Stones’ in Opening and Closing Department Meetings.” Journal of Business Communication50 (1): 34–67. 10.1177/0021943612465182
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943612465182 [Google Scholar]
  34. Oittinen, Tuire
    2018 “Multimodal Accomplishment of Alignment and Affiliation in the Local Space of Distant Meetings.” Culture and Organization24 (1): 35–53. 10.1080/14759551.2017.1386189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2017.1386189 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2020 Coordinating Actions in and across Interactional Spaces in Technology-Mediated Business Meetings (Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä, Finland). Retrieved fromhttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/69067
  36. Oittinen, Tuire, and Arja Piirainen-Marsh
    2015 “Openings in Technology-Mediated Business Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics85 (8): 47–66. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Olbertz-Siitonen, Margarethe
    2015 “Transmission Delay in Technology-Mediated Interaction at Work.” PsychNology Journal13 (2–3): 203–234.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Raclaw, Joshua, Jessica S. Robles, and Stephen M. DiDomenico
    2016 “Providing Epistemic Support for Assessments for Mobile-Supported Sharing Activities.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 362–379. 10.1080/08351813.2016.1199089
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1199089 [Google Scholar]
  39. Raymond, Geoffrey, and Don H. Zimmerman
    2016 “Closing Matters: Alignment and Misalignment in Sequence and Call Closings in Institutional Interaction.” Discourse Studies18 (6): 716–736. 10.1177/1461445616667141
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445616667141 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rintel, Sean
    2013 “Tech-Tied or Tongue-Tied? Technological versus Social Trouble in Relational Video Calling.” 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3343–3352. 10.1109/HICSS.2013.512
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.512 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ruhleder, Karen, and Brigitte Jordan
    2001 “Managing Complex, Distributed Environments: Remote Meeting Technologies at the ‘Chaotic Fringe’.” First Monday6, firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/857/766 [2/11/2019]. 10.5210/fm.v6i5.857
    https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v6i5.857 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    2007Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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]
  44. Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis E. LeBaron
    2011Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Ticca, Anna C.
    2012 “Reconfiguring the Interactional Space: Organising the Closing of Encounters in an Italian Travel Agency.” Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée96: 91–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Wasson, Christina
    2006 “Being in Two Spaces at Once: Virtual Meetings and Their Representation.” Journal of Linguistic Anthropology16 (1): 103–130. 10.1525/jlin.2006.16.1.103
    https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2006.16.1.103 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): closings; conversation analysis; distant meetings; embodied resources; multimodality
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