The Significance of Body Behaviors in the Organization of Interaction URC 2014

The segment of interaction I recorded demonstrates body behavior in relation to objects and the material surroundings. I analyzed my data in reference to the perspectives from studies done by Robinson and Stivers, LeBaron and Streeck, as well as Heath and von Lehn.

References used throughout entire research

Conclusion

My empirical data contributes to the understanding of body behaviors, discourse and both verbal and non verbal cues in interaction.

Resources

Objects and the Marterial Surround

Body behaviors function as interactional tools for communicating information between participants through imagery and intensity

Objects & Material Surround

Robinson, J. and Stivers, T. 2001. Achieving Activity Transitions in Physician-Patient Encounters: From History Taking to Physical Examination. Human Communication Research 27: 253-298.

LeBaron, C. and Streeck, J. 1997. Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1, 1-25.

Heath, C. and von Lehn, D. 2004. Configuring Reception: (Dis-) Regarding the Spectator in Museums and Galleries. Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 21(6): 43-65.

Body behaviors, discourse and vocal cues convey our perspectives but also serve as cognitive function that allows us to more easily process our thoughts

Change in Spatial Relations and Orientation to Objects

Robinson-

Verbal and non verbal communication

Aspects in the co-construction on meaning

Facial expressions are fluid and mobile, both speaker and participants facials are reactive in an interaction. The can forshadow, accompany or follow a turn at talk

Lines 1-7

LeBaron-

Verbal Utterance

Built Space and Reframing

Non-verbal action

Aspects of no constraints on interaction/setting and transitions to next phase or sequence

F: (is it)=unacceptable to ss: (.) put spaghetti (.) in a *bag (*F closes drawer)

(0.2)

hh h hh *(.) (*F squats down to look in drawer)

B: a mustache

(0.2) ↑in a bag* (*B moves closer towards F, both B and F have joint attention towards Tupperware cabinet)

Lines 10-12

Gaze and Gestures were used to gain participants attention, often found in turn taking

B: °ah:°* (.) you could probably puts- the spaghetti in a bag I wouldn’t put the sauce °in a bag° (*B moves away from cabinet and walks toward the exit)

Co-construction of understood meaning

Lines 20-22

F: spatial relations *(.) nop- **(.)↑y:up ***beautiful**** (*F pull out another cover, **finally finds a top to fit container, ***closes container and drawer, ****walks toward cooking corner)

Eckman, P. 1999. Facial Expressions. In Dalgleish, T. and Power, M. Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. Sussex: John Wiley and Sons. Fox, B. (1999) Directions in Research: Language and the Body, Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32:1-2, 51-59

Goffman, E. 1963. Chapter 3: Some Rules about the Allocation of Involvement. In Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Goodwin, C. 1980. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 272-302 .

Goodwin, C. 1984. Notes on story structures and the organization of participation. In: Atkinson, J.M., J. Heritage, eds. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 225-46.

Goodwin, C. 1986. Gestures as a Resource for the Organization of Mutual Orientation. Semiotica, 62(1/2), 29-49.

Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003. Chapters 3 and 4. In Hearing Gesture. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Heath, C. and von Lehn, D. 2004. Configuring Reception: (Dis-) Regarding the Spectator in Museums and Galleries. Theory, Culture & Society. Vol. 21(6): 43-65.

Kidwell, M. 1998. Demonstrating recipiency: Knowledge displays as a resource for the unaddressed participant. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 1 (2), 85-96.

Kidwell, M. and Zimmerman, D. 2007. Joint Attention as Action. Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3), 592-611.

LeBaron, C. and Streeck, J. 1997. Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1, 1-25.

McNeil, D. 1992. Chapter 5. In Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pearson, J. C., Nelson, P. E., Titsworth, S., & Harter, L. (2010). Human communication. (4 ed., pp. 80-101). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Retrieved from http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073406805/information_center_view0/overview.html

Robinson, J. and Stivers, T. 2001. Achieving Activity Transitions in Physician-Patient Encounters: From History Taking to Physical Examination. Human Communication Research 27: 253-298.

Ruusuvuori, J., and Peräkylä, A. 2009. Facial and Verbal Expressions in Assessing Stories and Topics. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 42 (4): 377 – 394.

Schegloff, E. 1998. Body Torque. Social Research 65: 535-86.

Stivers, T. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 41:1, 31 - 57

Storytelling sequences help us to acknowledge our perception of the world in regards to the structure and organization as well as our stance and expectations. Violation of expectations can elicit anxieties and cause participants to use delays, pauses and restarts. Self grooming is also a way for participants to prepare themselves before long turns at talk

Contributes to ideas from...

LeBaron

The structure and organization of interactions is shaped through our discourse, our body behaviors, and the location or surrounding we are engaged in.

Robinson

LeBaron-

• -“Built space shapes social interaction at the same time that interaction shapes social space”
• -verbal utterances and non-verbal actions used to convey meaning that is understood with body behavior and “understood by virtue of its position in context”
• -“The participants’ gestures are largely concerned with establishing a common focus of visual alignment. The objects themselves momentarily become the focus of mutual concern”

Built Space and Reframing

Aspects of mutual focus and joint attention

Thank you for your time

Heath

Line 4

F: hh h hh *(.) (*F squats down to look in drawer)

Heath-

Lines 6-7

Are there any

Transposing Action to the Object

Aspects of participants orientation to the object

B: (0.2) ↑in a bag* (*B moves closer towards F, both B and F have joint attention towards the Tupperware cabinet)

Figure 1

Lines 4-7

Figure 1

F: hh h hh *(.) (*F squats down to look in drawer)

B: a mustache

(0.2) ↑in a bag* (*B moves closer towards F, both B and F have joint attention towards the Tupperware cabinet)

Figure 2

Figure 2

Questions?

My Data segment depicts...

Heath-

Transposing the Object to the Body

Aspects of the reaction to the object and interaction "mediated" through the object

Figure 5

Figure 7

Figure 6

• The interaction takes place in the kitchen and involves 3 participants- Brooke, Franky, and Susan
• The activity that is presented is the search to find a complete Tupperware or container set
• Refers to "built space" (Lebaron), "verbal and non-verbal communication" (Robinson), and "orientation to objects" (Heath)

Lines 14-22

Figure 5

Figure 6

F: (0.5)** (*F stands up, **finds bottom of container)

B: ( )

(0.2)

F: *nope .hh (0.2)** no (*F pulls out cover, **shuffles in drawer pulls out another cover)

S: .hh I =don’t wanna go to work

F: spatial relations *(.) nop- **(.)↑y:up ***beautiful**** (*F pull out another cover, **finally finds a top to fit container, ***closes container and drawer, ****walks toward cooking corner)

Figure 7

Body Behaviors in relation to storytelling structure

Resources

Body Behaviors in relation to Storytelling Structure

• Goodwin, C. 1984. Notes on story structures and the organization of participation. In: Atkinson, J.M., J. Heritage, eds. Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 225-46.

• McNeil, D. 1992. Chapter 5. In Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Overview

The information I found pertains to how body behaviors contribute to the discourse in an interaction and are significant to the structure of the story telling.

Story Acknowledgment/ Response

Verbal discourse and utterances as well as non verbal cues and actions can elicit a request or a response in a sequence of interaction

The Significance of Body Behaviors in the

Organization of Interaction

Examples:

Verbal- "Right?", "Yeah", "hh hh" (laugh tokens)

Nonverbal- head nods, eye gaze, gestures, facials

I will demonstrate how the activity of storytelling is organized into sequences of story initiation, story delivery, recipient acknowledgment and story response. I examine how body behaviors such as gaze, gestures, body torque, and facial expression shape the participants' understanding of the actions within the interaction. I will discuss how built space and body orientation form expectations and roles of participants in the interaction. Finally, I will examine how each body behavior is relevant to accomplishing a sequence and how the actions and elements of interaction make up each sequence.

Climax:

14 S: and was like *↑Ok well: like what kind of vodka do we have? So I listed off like a few. She goes (.) K what are the last like (other)= **twelve (.) I was like ↑I don’t even think I could ***name twelve vodkas hh (*gazes away and gives a look of disapproval,**looks back up toward F,***smiles and laughs)

Figure 4

Preface:

Analysis

This frame grab illustrates Susan's use of eye gaze and facial expression. Her facial expression of disapproval both foreshadows and accompanies the discourse. The expression enhances the meaning and understanding of the story.

Establishes participants roles in the interaction

Figure 4:

Research and Analysis by:

Brooke Ashley Guertin

15 F: *↓even if I knew them I still don’t know them (*oriented toward dominant activity) Figure 5

16 S: *hh hh =ye:ah: (*looks at F, gaze following his actions)

(0.4) Like this isn’t my fault

17 F: This is still °not big enough↓ oh my goodness° .hh

2 S: I-should probably like *learn the menu before I go in (*Looks up to F)

3 F: That might be a good idea

4 S: .hh hh hh

5 F: °that° might help a little bit huh↑

(0.3)↑Oww (0.2)

Laugh token invites more talk

This frame grab illustrates the facial expression that proceeds the discourse. Susan is requesting a response from Franky. The use of laugh tokens encourages and invites Franky to join in her laughter and align with her story

Figure 5:

My Video Segment depicts...

The laugh tokens along with Frankys reaction to the Tupperware container he is using in his dominate activity creates the ending of one story sequence and the beginning of the next sequence of story telling

"The story thus contains not only preface, background, and climax sections but also what may be called a parenthesis, a section of background information embedded (disjunctively) within the climax." (Goodwin, C., 1994, 226)

S: Susan (Storyteller)

F: Franky (Story Recipient)

Who: This interaction includes my two roommates, Susan and Franky, as well as myself.

What: The interaction involves the activity of storytelling

Where: The encounter takes place in my kitchen at my house on campus in a multi-activity setting

Background:

Undergraduate Research Conference

Parenthesis:

6 S: But like they suck with training* like= they =literally never went over anything like menus or drink-h-items or anything. They jus-[ (*scratches head)

Goodwin discusses how the speaker positions themselves within the story as well as their posture and orientation to recipients in the interaction

Figure 1

Susan is aware Franky is involved in a dominant activity.

She uses body grooms to prepare herself for a longer turn-at-talk

Figure 1:

Susan: Storyteller Franky:Story Recipient

Vocal tone, facial expressions, and gestures are all elements that change in relation to the characters being narrated by the storyteller in the story development to portray stance towards the situations in the story

Figure 3:

Susan uses eye gaze and gesture to attract Frankys attention.

Although Franky is looking away and involved in his dominant involvement of cooking pasta, he fulfills the role of story recipient by displaying tokens of acknowledgment and responses

12 S: And like when (I went in for my last pay check) on Sunday she was like *↑OH do=you know**=what- a ***( ) drink is? And I was like No(*Looks up at F/ speaks in textured voice,** F looks over at S,***moves hands in shaking and shaping motion)

13 F: *↓°no:pe° (.) could ya tell me(*oriented toward pasta, S is also watching his actions)

Communication and the Body Panel

Figure 2:

"Her elbows remain stable throughout the body of the story the speaker's hands are mobile, their movement being coordinated with subunits within the long, multi-utterance turn (Goodwin, C., 1994, 229)

Figure 3

Figure 2

7 F: [↑really?

8 S: *=made me ↑follow them around and like do their bitch work=[like Bust that (*gazes up at F)

9 F: [↑Oww

10 S: =table (.) or (.) run these drinks:

11 F: That means you’re working at a gr:eat=restaurant [teh hh

12 S: *[ye:ah right↑(*gazes up at F)

Goodwin refers to the "right?" question statement as a explicit request for co-participation (236)

This Segment of discourse encourages further talk

Speaker's body positioning is oriented toward the participant and fully focused. Susan uses eye gaze and an iconic gesticulation to capture and secure Franky's attention even for one slight second

2014