1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article presents a study of participants’ practices for closing buying-selling encounters in retail shops. The study shows how the handing over of a shopping bag with the items purchased serves as a resource for organizing the closing of the encounter. Further, taking its point of departure in the growing societal awareness of the environmental impact of plastic waste, the study investigates how customers’ increasing avoidance of single-use shopping bags contributes to changing their practices for closing a buying-selling encounter, as the bags no longer provide a resource around which the closing can be organized.

The article uses ethnomethodological conversation analytic (EMCA) methods to describe how customers and sales assistants create and maintain the local order of the shop and how they, through their multimodal and embodied contributions, bring societal discourses into the buying-selling encounter.

The data consists of 22 shopping sequences, recorded in Danish shops in 2018.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20008.kri
2023-03-14
2024-03-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arminen, Ilkka, and Petra Auvinen
    2013 “Environmentally coupled repairs and remedies in the airline cockpit: Repair practices of talk and action in interaction.” Discourse Studies15 (1):19–41. 10.1177/1461445612466463
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612466463 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bergmann, Jörg R.
    1998 “Introduction: Morality in Discourse.” Research on Language and Social Interaction31 (3–4):279–94. 10.1080/08351813.1998.9683594
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.1998.9683594 [Google Scholar]
  3. Broth, Mathias, and Lorenza Mondada
    2013 “Walking away: The embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics47 (1):41–58. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.016 [Google Scholar]
  4. Button, Graham
    1987 “Moving out of closings.” InTalk and social organization, edited byGraham Button and John R. E. Lee, 101–51. Clevedon, UK & Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Curl, Traci S.
    2006 “Offers of assistance: Constraints on syntactic design.” Journal of Pragmatics38 (8):1257–80. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davidson, Judy
    1990 “Modifications of invitations, offers and rejections.” InInteraction competence, edited byGeorge Psathas, 149–79. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks
    1986 “On formal structures of practical actions.” InEthnomethodological studies of work, edited byHarold Garfinkel, 160–93. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Hazel, Spencer, Kristian Mortensen, and Gitte Rasmussen
    2014 “Introduction: A body of resources – CA studies of social conduct.” Journal of Pragmatics651:1–9. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.10.007 [Google Scholar]
  9. Heath, Christian
    1986Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge University Press & Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme. 10.1017/CBO9780511628221
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628221 [Google Scholar]
  10. Hepburn, Alexa, and Galina B. Bolden
    2012 “The conversation analytic approach to transcription.” InThe Blackwell handbook of conversation analysis, edited byJack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 57–76. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118325001.ch4
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001.ch4 [Google Scholar]
  11. Heritage, John
    1988 “Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective.” InAnalysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, edited byCharles Antaki, 127–44. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Heritage, John, and Anna Lindstrom
    1998 “Motherhood, medicine, and morality: Scenes from a medical encounter.” Research on Language & Social Interaction31 (3–4):397–438. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3103&4_5 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hofstetter, Emily, and Elizabeth Stokoe
    2015 “Offers of assistance in politician–constituent interaction.” Discourse Studies17 (6):724–51. 10.1177/1461445615602376
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602376 [Google Scholar]
  14. Kristiansen, Elisabeth Dalby, Elisabeth Muth Andersen, and Gitte Rasmussen
    2018 “Transfer sequences involving persons with dementia: Instrumental tasks as opportunities for conversation.” Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders9 (2):191–214. 10.1558/jircd.38225
    https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.38225 [Google Scholar]
  15. Kärkkäinen, Elise, and Tiina Keisanen
    2012 “Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers.” Discourse Studies14 (5):587–611. 10.1177/1461445612454069
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612454069 [Google Scholar]
  16. Lindström, Jan K., Catrin Norrby, Camilla Wide, and Jenny Nilsson
    2017 “Intersubjectivity at the counter: Artefacts and multimodal interaction in theatre box office encounters.” Journal of Pragmatics1081:81–97. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Mondada, Lorenza
    2014 “The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics651:137–56. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  18. Robinson, Jeffrey D.
    2006 “Managing trouble responsibility and relationships during conversational repair.” Communication Monographs73 (2):137–61. 10.1080/03637750600581206
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750600581206 [Google Scholar]
  19. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1992a “On talk and its institutional occasions.” InTalk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settingsedited byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 101–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1992b “Repair after next turn: The last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation.” American Journal of Sociology11:295–345. 10.1086/229903
    https://doi.org/10.1086/229903 [Google Scholar]
  21. 1996 “Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action.” American Journal of Sociology102 (1):161–216. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  22. 1997 “Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair.” Discourse Processes23 (3):499–545. 10.1080/01638539709545001
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2007Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  24. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America531:361–82. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  25. Schegloff, Emanuel A., and Harvey Sacks
    1973 “Opening up closings.” Semiotica: Journal of the International Association for Semiotic Studies/Revue de l’Association Internationale de Sémiotique8 (4):289–327. 10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sidnell, Jack
    2011Conversation analysis: An introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society35 (3):367–92. 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ticca, Anna Claudia
    2012 “Reconfiguring the interactional space: Organising the closing of encounters in an Italian travel agency.” Bulletin VALS-ASLA961:91–116.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Ventola, Eija
    1987The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20008.kri
Loading
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