ICCA2018 panel on noticings as social actions

From emcawiki
Revision as of 19:41, 17 July 2018 by SaulAlbert (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
ICCA2018-NOTICINGS
Type Conference
Categoryies (tags) Uncategorized
Dates 2018/07/11 - 2018/07/15
Link http://icca2018.org
Address Loughborough University, UK
Geolocation
Abstract due 2017/09/15
Submission deadline 2017/09/30
Final version due
Notification date
Tweet CFP: ICCA 2018 panel on noticings as social actions, DL: 20th Sept to organizers, 30th submission
Export for iCalendar

CFP: ICCA2018 panel on noticings as social actions:


Details:

Noticings as actions-in-conversation are a ubiquitous, versatile, but under-researched interactional phenomenon (Keisanen 2012), and various analytic descriptions of noticings are scattered throughout the CA literature. For example, Drew and Chilton (2000) point out that in telephone conversations, participants use oh-prefaced noticings when shifting topics in the midst of an ongoing course of action; when noticings are occasioned as by-products of copresence they have been described alongside 'response cries' (Goffman 1978): marking ostensibly internal, psychological events. Goodwin and Goodwin (2012) also show how noticings, when produced as 'prospective indexicals' (Goodwin 1996), can point "outside of talk", drawing as-yet-unnoticed resources into social action. Through this process, Schegloff (2007a, 218) suggests that noticings "put on offer a line of talk" that renders something as optionally relevant and 'noticeable' for use in subsequent interaction (Sacks 1995, II:91). Stivers and Rossano (2010) describe noticings as equivocally response-relevant since they only make a response optionally relevant next, whereas 'canonical' actions such as requests or invitations usually occasion fitted responses (or accounts for non-response). This has led some analysts to question whether noticings and other analytic descriptions of 'first actions' can be said to constitute social actions at all (Thompson, Fox, and Couper-Kuhlen 2015, 141). It is unclear whether noticings are organised with reference to prospectively paired 'action types' (Levinson 2013), or whether they are organised---as Schegloff (2007a, 219) suggests---as a generic kind of retro-sequence which points backwards to a prior 'noticeable' (just as repair points to a prior 'repairable' or laughter initiation to a prior 'laughable'). Of course, we also welcome contributions arguing that these invocations of 'noticing' in CA are analytical flawed descriptions that may obscure more of the action than they clarify.

Without pre-specifying any one analytic characterization as definitive, this panel aims to bring together research that engages with noticings as actions-in-conversation. We invite perspectives on noticings that draw out their ambiguities as social actions, and that explore noticings alongside a range of embodied practices where describing (Sidnell and Barnes 2009), referring (Hindmarsh and Heath 2000), and categorising may also be at issue (Schegloff 2007b). Although we are primarily interested in empirical studies, we also invite contributers to address theoretical questions that arise from treating noticings as conversational devices. How are researchers' noticings and participants' noticings differently constitutive of interactional phenomena (Laurier 2013)? Do noticings function as ontological practices, through which participant roles, 'noticeable' resources and social actions emerge reflexively as an interactional environment in particular ways (Schegloff 2007b, 87 note 17; Albert 2016, 193–95). Drawing together diverse approaches to noticings, this panel asks how understanding noticings as actions-in-conversation may open up new empirical and theoretical questions and challenges.

Contact: mick.smith.us@gmail.com / saul.albert@tufts.edu if you're interested in participating by the 20th September

References

  • Albert, Saul. 2016. “Respecifying Aesthetics: Accounting for Taste in Everyday Talk.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen May University of London.
  • Drew, Paul, and Kathy Chilton. 2000. “Calling Just to Keep in Touch: Regular and Habitualised Telephone Calls as an Environment for Small Talk.” In Small Talk, edited by Justine Coupland, 137–62. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
  • Goffman, Erving. 1978. “Response cries.” Language 54 (4): 787–815.
  • Goodwin, Charles. 1996. “Transparent vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited by Emanuel A Schegloff and Sandra A Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 2012. “Car Talk: Integrating Texts, Bodies, and Changing Landscapes.” Semiotica 191 (1/4): 257–86. doi:10.1515/sem-2012-0063.
  • Hindmarsh, Jon, and Christian Heath. 2000. “Embodied Reference: A Study of Deixis in Workplace Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (12). Elsevier: 1855–78. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00122-8.
  • Keisanen, Tiina. 2012. “‘Uh-Oh, We Were Going There’: Environmentally Occasioned Noticings of Trouble in in-Car Interaction.” Semiotic 191 (1/4): 197–222. doi:10.1515/sem-2012-0061.
  • Laurier, Eric. 2013. “Noticing: Talk, Gestures, Movement and Objects in Video Analysis.” In The SAGE Handbook of Human Geography, edited by Roger Lee, Noel Castree, Rob Kitchin, Victorial Lawson, Anssi Paasi, Chris Philo, Sarah Radcliffe, * Susan M Roberts, and Charles WJ Withers, 2nd ed., 31:250–72. London: Sage.
  • Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. “Action formation and ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 101–30. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Vol. II. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007a. Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007b. “A tutorial on membership categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 462–82. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007.
  • Sidnell, Jack, and Rebecca Barnes. 2009. “Alternative, Subsequent Descriptions.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, edited by Jack Sidnell, Makoto Hayashi, and Geoffrey Raymond, 322–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1080/08351810903471258.
  • Thompson, Sandra A, Barbara A Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,