Oloff2013
| Oloff2013 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Oloff2013 |
| Author(s) | Florence Oloff |
| Title | Embodied withdrawal after overlap resolution |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Embodiment, Overlap, Conversation analysis, Multimodal analysis, Overlapping talk, Overlap resolution, Drop out, Embodied withdrawal |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2013 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 46 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 139–156 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.005 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Dropping out of overlap is a frequent practice for overlap resolution (0190 and 0105) in interaction, as it re-establishes the “one-at-a-time” principle of the turn-taking system (Sacks et al., 1974). While it is appropriate to analyze the practice of dropping out of overlap as a verbal and thus audible phenomenon, a close look at video data reveals that withdrawing from an action trajectory is also an embodied practice. Based on a fine-grained multimodal analysis (C. 0020, 0130 and 0135) of videotaped interactions in French, this paper illustrates how overlapped speakers organize the momentary suspension of their action trajectory in visible ways. Indeed, participants do not instantly withdraw from their action trajectory when they stop talking. By using bodily resources, they are able to display continuous monitoring of the availability of their co-participants and of the next possible slot for resuming their suspended action. I therefore suggest analyzing the drop out of overlap as the first step of withdrawal, as definitive, embodied withdrawal can occur later, or, in case of resumption, not at all. Consequently, my paper analyzes withdrawal as a good example of strengthening the analytic concept of embodiment with regard to turn-taking practices in interaction.
Notes
