IPrA2021 Panel on Emotion in Institutional Encounters

From emcawiki
Revision as of 11:12, 18 August 2020 by JackJoyce (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Announcement |Announcement Type=Conference |Full title=IPrA2021 Panel on Emotion in Institutional Encounters |Short title=IPrA2021 Panel |Short summary=How do interlocutors...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
IPrA2021 Panel
Type Conference
Categoryies (tags) EMCA, Emotion, Institutional, Complaints
Dates 2021/06/27 - 2021/07/02
Link https://pragmatics.international/page/CfP
Address IPrA2021
Geolocation 39° 48' 11", -75° 35' 15"
Abstract due
Submission deadline
Final version due
Notification date
Tweet How do interlocutors balance emotional concerns in institutional encounters? ⚖️ If you'd like to contribute to @BenwellBethan @JackBJoyce & @CatrinSRhys panel on Emotion in Institutional Encounters at #IPrA2021 then get in touch with them before October.
Export for iCalendar

IPrA2021 Panel on Emotion in Institutional Encounters:


Details:

Bethan Benwell, Jack B. Joyce & Catrin S. Rhys

Ulster University, UK & Stirling University, UK.

Contact: j.joyce@ulster.ac.uk

This panel brings together scholars investigating how emotion and institutional concerns are interwoven in talk-in-interaction. It assembles interactional studies which address: (1) how we understand emotion in institutional encounters (2) how emotional concerns and institutional concerns are navigated, and (3) members’ orientations to personal experience as it is interactionally accomplished.

Studies of emotion in interaction treat emotion as a discursive phenomenon that is rhetorically deployed and used to construct the nature and causes of events (Edwards, 1999). Crucially, how actions reflect peoples’ emotional states, stances, and attitudes towards an issue or event (see Couper-Kuhlen, 2012), and how these are organised in interaction (see Kaukomaa et al., 2013). Investigations into common markers of emotion include (but are not limited to): certain words (Edwards, 2005), facial expressions (Kaukomaa et al., 2013), descriptions (Rae, 2008), and reaction tokens (Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2006). We excavate how these displays are manifest in institutional interactions where service users are complaining, requesting, demanding etc., to uncover how affect can be a resource for achieving an action, but may also act as a hindrance to fulfilling the institutional remit. Service providers are expected to balance these often-competing demands, and it is this balancing which is of interest to this panel.

This panel assembles papers from scholars examining emotion in institutional encounters, specifically those which deal with action, sequence, and interactional activities across a variety of institutional contexts. Among other topics, invited papers explore emotion in complaints to the NHS, requests for help from a charity, calls to social workers, and emergency dispatch calls. The panellists are encouraged to reflect on junctures where institutional concerns are at odds with displays of emotion, and how interlocutors balance these to act appropriately. Thus, the intended outcome of the panel is to further understand institutional encounters where sensitive concerns are manifest, and thus in conflict or agreement with, the concerns of the institution.

References

Edwards, D. (1999). Emotion Discourse. Culture & Psychology, 5(3), pp. 271-291.

Edwards, D. (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: the subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies, 7(1), pp. 5-29.

Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2012). Exploring Affiliation in the Reception of Conversational Complaint Stories. In A. Peräkylä, & M-L. Sorjonen (eds.) Emotion in Interaction. Oxford University Press, pp. 113-146.

Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2013). Turn-opening smiles: Facial expression constructing emotional transition in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 55, pp. 21-42.

Kupetz, M. (2014). Empathy displays as interactional achievements: Multimodal and sequential aspects. Journal of Pragmatics, 61, pp. 4-34.

Rae, J. (2008). Lexical substitution as a therapeutic resources. In A. Peräkylä, C. Antaki, S. Vehviläinen & I. Leudar (eds.) Conversation analysis and psychotherapy. Cambridge University Press, pp. 62-79.

Wilkinson, S. & Kitzinger, C. (2006). Surprise As an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69(2), pp. 150-182.