Volume 9, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This conversation analytic study examines the interaction coordinated between two amateur tour guides and a guided visitor for initiating departure from various objects during a campus tour managed through Japanese as a lingua franca. The data come from a 40-minute tour at a Taiwanese university in which two Taiwanese students acted as guides for one American professor. The resulting analysis revealed the guided visitor’s active role in determining departure from focal objects through deployment of assessments and bodily movements. This study supports findings from previous research on various languages by providing empirical evidence that the following two phenomena are highly consistent across languages and that they hold true even in lingua franca interaction: (1) assessments are routinely deployed to close a sequence; and (2) assessments are made recognizable as initiating closings when they act in concert with sequential positioning, bodily movements, the environmental context, and objects in the immediate surround.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Antaki, Charles
    2002 “‘Lovely’: Turn-Initial High-Grade Assessments in Telephone Closings.” Discourse Studies4: 5–23. doi: 10.1177/14614456020040010101
    https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040010101 [Google Scholar]
  2. Antaki, Charles , Hanneke Houtkoop-Steenstra , and Mark Rapley
    2000 “‘Brilliant. Next Question…’: High-Grade Assessment Sequences in the Completion of Interactional Units.” Research on Language and Social Interaction33: 235–262. doi: 10.1207/S15317973RLS13303_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15317973RLS13303_1 [Google Scholar]
  3. Best, Katie
    2012 “Making Museum Tours Better: Understanding What a Guided Tour Really Is and What a Tour Guide Really Does.” Museum Management and Curatorship27: 35–52. doi: 10.1080/09647775.2012.644695
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09647775.2012.644695 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolden, Galina
    2008 “Reopening Russian Conversations: The Discourse Particle -to and the Negotiation of Interpersonal Accountability in Closings.” Human Communication Research34: 99–136. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2007.00315.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00315.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Broth, Mathias , and Fredrik Lundström
    2013 “A Walk on the Pier: Establishing Relevant Places in Mobile Instruction.” InInteraction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion, ed. by Pentti Haddington , Lorenza Mondada , and Maurice Nevile , 91–122. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110291278.91
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278.91 [Google Scholar]
  6. Broth, Mathias , and Lorenza Mondada
    2013 “Walking Away: The Embodied Achievement of Activity Closings in Mobile Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics47: 41–58. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016 [Google Scholar]
  7. Burdelski, Matthew
    2016 “ We-Focused and I-Focused Stories of World War II in Guided Tours at a Japanese American Museum.” Discourse & Society27: 156–171. doi: 10.1177/0957926515611553
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515611553 [Google Scholar]
  8. Burdelski, Matthew , Michie Kawashima , and Keichi Yamazaki
    2014 “Storytelling in Guided Tours: Practices, Engagement, and Identity at a Japanese American Museum.” Narrative Inquiry24: 328–346. doi: 10.1075/ni.24.2.08bur
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.24.2.08bur [Google Scholar]
  9. Button, Graham
    1987 “Moving Out of Closings.” InTalk and Social Organization, ed. by Graham Button and John R. E. Lee , 101–151. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. De Stefani, Elwys , and Lorenza Mondada
    2014 “Reorganizing Mobile Formations: When ‘Guided’ Participants Initiate Reorientations in Guided Tours.” Space and Culture17(2): 157–175. doi: 10.1177/1206331213508504
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331213508504 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dersley, Ian , and Antony J. Wootton
    2001 “In the Heart of the Sequence: Interactional Features Preceding Walkouts from Argumentative Talk.” Language in Society30: 611–638.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Drew, Paul , and Elizabeth Holt
    1998 “Figures of Speech: Figurative Expressions and the Management of Topic Transition in Conversation.” Language and Society27: 495–52210.1017/S0047404500020200
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500020200 [Google Scholar]
  13. Goffman, Erving
    1963Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldberg, Jo Ann
    2004 “The Amplitude Shift Mechanism in Conversational Closing Sequences.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner , 257–297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.13gol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.13gol [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, Charles
    1984 “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 225–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 1986 “Between and Within: Alternative Treatments of Continuers and Assessments.” Human Studies9: 205–217. doi: 10.1007/BF00148127
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00148127 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2000 “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007 “Environmentally Coupled Gestures.” InGesture and the Dynamic Dimensions of Language, ed. by Susan D. Duncan , Justine Cassell , and Elena Levy , 195–212. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/gs.1.18goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gs.1.18goo [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodwin, Charles , and Marjorie Harness Goodwin
    1987 “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments.” Pragmatics1: 1–54. doi: 10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/iprapip.1.1.01goo [Google Scholar]
  20. 1992 “Assessments and the Construction of Context.” InRethinking Context, ed. by Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin , 147–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Haddington, Pentti , Lorenza Mondada , and Maurice Nevile
    (eds.) 2013Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110291278
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hayano, Kaoru
    2011 “Claiming Epistemic Primacy: Yo-Marked Assessments in Japanese.” InThe morality of knowledge in conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Mondada , and Jacob Steensig , 58–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CB09780511921674.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511921674.004 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heritage, John
    1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage , 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2002 “Oh-Prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” InThe language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford , Barbara Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson , 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68: 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027350506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027350506800103 [Google Scholar]
  26. Laurier, Eric
    2008 “Drinking up Endings: Conversational Resources of the Café.” Language & Communication28: 165–181. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2008.01.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2008.01.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindström, Anna , and Trine Heinemann
    2009 “Good Enough: Low-Grade Assessments in Caregiving Situations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42: 309–328. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296465
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296465 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lindström, Anna , and Lorenza Mondada
    2009 “Assessments in Social Interaction: Introduction to the Special Issue.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42: 299–308. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296457
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296457 [Google Scholar]
  29. Llewellyn, Nick , and Carly W. Butler
    2011 “Walking out on Air.” Research on Language and Social Interaction44: 44–64. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2011.544128
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2011.544128 [Google Scholar]
  30. McIlvenny, Paul , Mathias Broth , and Pentti Haddington
    2009 “Communicating Place, Space and Mobility.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 1879–1886. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.014 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mehan, Hugh
    1979Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674420106
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674420106 [Google Scholar]
  32. Mondada, Lorenza
    2009 “The Embodied and Negotiated Production of Assessments in Instructed Actions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction42: 329–361. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296473
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903296473 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2011 “Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 542–552. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2012 “Garden Lessons: Embodied Action and Joint Attention in Extended Sequences.” InInteraction and Everyday Life: Phenomenological and Ethnomethodological Essays in Honor of George Psathas, ed. by Hisashi Nasu , and Frances Chaput Waksler , 279–296. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2013 “Displaying, Contesting and Negotiating Epistemic Authority in Social Interaction: Descriptions and Questions in Guided Visits.” Discourse Studies15: 597–626. doi: 10.1177/1461445613501577
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501577 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2017 “Walking and Talking Together: Questions/Answers and Mobile Participation in Guided Visits.” Social Science Information56: 220–253. doi: 10.1177/0539018417694777
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417694777 [Google Scholar]
  37. Pomerantz, Anita
    1975Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreement/ Disagreement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Irvine.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1978 “Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-Operation of Multiple Constraints.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein , 79–112. New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑623550‑0.50010‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-623550-0.50010-0 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Psathas, George
    1995Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk in Interaction. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Raymond, Geoffrey , and John Heritage
    2006 “The Epistemics of Social Relations: Owning Grandchildren.” Language in Society35: 677–705. doi: 10.10170S0047404506060325
    https://doi.org/10.10170S0047404506060325 [Google Scholar]
  42. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1987a “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50: 101–114.10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  43. 1987b “Between Micro and Macro: Contexts and Other Connections.” InThe Micro-Macro Link, ed. by Jeffrey C. Alexander , Bernhard Giesen , Richard Münch , and Neil J. Smelser , 207–234. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 1988 “On an Actual Virtual Servo-Mechanism for Guessing Bad News: A Single Case Conjecture.” Social Problems35: 442–457.10.2307/800596
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800596 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  46. Schegloff, Emanuel A. , and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up Closings.” Semiotica8: 289–327.10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  47. Stivers, Tanya , and Federico Rossano
    2010 “A Scalar View of Response Relevance.” Research on Language and Social Interaction43: 49–56. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471381
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471381 [Google Scholar]
  48. Streeck, Jürgen
    2013 “Interaction and the Living Body.” Journal of Pragmatics46: 69–90. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.010 [Google Scholar]
  49. Tuncer, Sylvaine
    2015 “Walking Away: An Embodied Resource to Close Informal Encounters in Offices.” Journal of Pragmatics76: 101–116. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.012 [Google Scholar]
  50. vom Lehn, Dirk
    2013 “Withdrawing from Exhibits: The Interactional Organization of Museum Visits.” InInteraction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion, ed. by Pentti Haddington , Lorenza Mondada , and Maurice Nevile , 65–90. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110291278.65
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278.65 [Google Scholar]
  51. Whalen, Jack , Don H. Zimmerman , and Marilyn R. Whalen
    1988 “When Words Fail: A Single Case Analysis.” Social Problems35: 335–359.10.2307/800591
    https://doi.org/10.2307/800591 [Google Scholar]
  52. Waring, Hansun Zhang
    2009 “Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): A Single Case Analysis.” Language Learning59: 796–824. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2009.00526.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00526.x [Google Scholar]
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