Materiality
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Materiality | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Pentti Haddington (University of Oulu, Finland) (https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4378-4450) |
| To cite: | Haddington, Pentti. (2023). Materiality. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/KC63J |
In Conversation Analysis, materiality is used to refer to the particulars of the physical (e.g., Goodwin, 2000), virtual (Hindmarsh, Heath & Fraser, 2006) or video-mediated interactions (Luff, et al. 2016; Oittinen, 2018), such as, objects, artifacts, technologies, tools, documents and shapes that participants can see, hear, touch and/or manipulate and use for accomplishing actions and activities in interaction (for an overview, see Nevile et al., 2014b: 12–13). Materiality is thus one aspect of the broader interest in studying multimodality in interaction and how various multimodal resources (e.g., talk, embodiment, objects) – or what Goodwin (2000) calls ‘contextual configuration’ – feature in action formation and ascription, as well as the organisation of interaction (Goodwin, 2000; Mondada, 2019; Streeck, Goodwin & LeBaron 2011b). Sometimes also gesture is included in the idea of materiality (see Streeck, Goodwin & LeBaron, 2011b: 9). The analysis of materiality in interaction covers the ways in which participants employ material features – together with other semiotic resources (Goodwin, 2000; Streeck, Goodwin & LeBaron, 2011) – to understand each other and build action together in accountable ways. The focus on materiality has been particularly important in the branch of workplace studies that is informed by ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (e.g., Suchman, 2006; Heath & Luff, 2000).
Materiality and its relevance for interaction can be conceptualized at least in the following two ways (see Nevile et al., 2014b: 4):
(i) People can interact with the material environment and use it to interact with other people. In such cases, the material environment is – together with talk and other resources – drawn on to build action and understanding or to progress an activity together. In other words, it functions as a situated resource for talk and interaction (Nevile et al., 2014b: 4, 8). The following excerpt (see Tuncer & Haddington, 2019: 72–73) shows how an object (a packet of crisps) and a feature of the object (list of ingredients) is used as a resource for progressing a discussion about the ingredients of crisps. The excerpt comes from an interaction inside a stopped car. Mother (MUM) is sitting in the driver’s seat, and her two daughters are sitting in the backseat eating crisps (DA2 behind the driver and DA1, on the left-hand side). DA2 does not say anything in the excerpt. Prior to the excerpt, DA2 has asked what crisps are made of. The question starts an episode which involves using a packet of crisps as a resource for figuring out the ingredients of crisps.
(1) Habitable Cars corpus (data courtesy of Eric Laurier)
After noting that DA2 is not eating crisps, but something else, Mum asks DA1 what she is eating (line 4). After DA1’s answer (line 5), Mum requests DA1 (line 7) to hand over the packet so that she can check the list of ingredients and answer DA2’s original question about the ingredients of crisps. After receiving the packet (see Fig. 2 and 3), Mum locates the list of ingredients and begins to read it out loud (lines 11-12, Fig. 4). In sum, the packet, including the writing on it, is used a material resource for answering DA2’s original question about the incredients of crisps and progressing the interactional activity. The packet, as a material resource, supports thinking, knowing and the acquisition of information, and it is a tool for instructing and teaching (about foodstuff). Accomplishing these things involves and requires manipulating, looking at and handing over the packet as a joint accomplishment.
(ii) People can also interact to build a joint understanding of what an object is exactly and how it is relevant for accomplishing a specific task or activity. In such cases, participants talk about the material environment in different ways, and the meanings of material features or objects emerge and are negotiated in social interaction. In other words, objects become situated accomplishments (Nevile et al. 2014b, p. 4). The following excerpt comes from a patrolling exercise in a UN military observer training course. The observer team is patrolling a demilitarised zone between two nations that are in conflict with each other, Blueland and Greyland. The team’s task is to notice and observe military activity in the patrolled area and to report (possible) violations. There are two persons in the patrol vehicle: the driver (DRV) and the team leader (TL) who is sitting on the front seat. They are driving in a demilitarised zone, and according to the cease-fire agreement, no military movement or armed civilians are allowed in the area. In line 2, the driver notices (“uhhuh?”) a Blueland flag on the side of the road. The noticing occasions an activity in which they start to determine the meaning and significance of the flag.
(2) [Team Whiskey, GOPRO3299.mp4: 5:25]
After noticing the flag, the driver points at the flag with the right hand. TL then lifts gaze from a map and follows the direction of the gesture. DRV and TL determine that the flag is a sign (line 15) and indicates the presence of Blueland (line 7), but its specific meaning remains unclear (see TL’s “that’s weird.” in line 11 and “what’s it saying.” in line 13). The team cannot be sure if the flag indicates troops, civilians, a camp or something else. Nevertheless, the flag is treated to require preparations for a possible encounter. This is indicated by the checking of their location (“is this (.) junction (.) Victor Two Zero?” in line 16). Determining their location is important for two reasons. First, if they encountered military troops, they would use the location to report the violation. Second, in case of emergency, the team could quickly send out a request for help including information about their their location. In sum, the UN military observer trainees notice and identify the flag in the environment, and they negotiate and establish its relevance for their team work (cf. ‘professional vision’, Goodwin 1994). While the practical meaning of the flag remains unclear (Are there troops nearby?), it is recognisable, categorizable and intelligible in this particular environment as a possible violation and trouble and has consequences for their activity.
It is sometimes difficult to make a clear distinction of when some material feature is used as a resource for interaction or when a material feature (e.g., an object) becomes a situated accomplishment.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in Action. Cambridge University Press.
Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., & Fraser, M. (2006). (Im)materiality, virtual reality and interaction: grounding the ‘virtual’ in studies of technology in action. The Sociological Review, 54(4), 795-817.
Luff, P., Heath, C., Yamashita, N., Kuzuoka, H., & Jirotka, M. (2016). Embedded Reference: Translocating Gestures in Video-Mediated Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(4), 342-361.
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47-62.
Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (2014b). On the interactional ecology of objects. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 3-26). John Benjamins.
Oittinen, T. (2018). Multimodal accomplishment of alignment and affiliation in the local space of distant meetings. Culture and Organization, 24(1), 31-53.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011b). Embodied Interaction in the Material World: An Introduction. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied Interaction: Language and the Body in the Material World (pp. 1-26). Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (2006). Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Additional References:
Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In S. D. Duncan, J. Cassell, & E. T. Levy (Eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language (pp. 195- 212). Benjamins.
Mikkola, P., & Lehtinen, E. (2014). Initiating activity shifts through use of appraisal forms as material objects during performance appraisal interviews. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 57-78). John Benjamins.
Mondada, L. (2019). Rethinking Bodies and Objects in Social Interaction: A Multimodal Multisensorial Approach to Tasting. In U. T. Kissmann & J. Van Loom (Eds.), Discussing New Materialism: Methodological Implications for the Study of Materialities (pp. 109-134). Springer.
Nevile, M. (2018). Configuring materiality, mobility, and multiactivity: Interactions with objects in cars. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(1).
Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.). (2014a). Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity. John Benjamins.
Oittinen, T. (2022). Material and embodied resources in the accomplishment of closings in technology-mediated business meetings. Pragmatics, 32(2), 299-327.
Richardson, E., & Stokoe, E. (2014). The order of ordering: Objects, requests and embodied conduct in a public bar. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with Objects: Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 31-56). Benjamins.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011a). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge University Press.
Tuncer, S., & Haddington, P. (2020). Object transfers: An embodied resource to progress joint activities and build relative agency. Language in Society, 49(1), 61-87.
Tuncer, S., Licoppe, C. & Haddington, P. (Eds.) (2019). Object-centred sequences in social interaction. Special issue in Gesprächsforshung (20).
