Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T21:09:53.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Multimodal Perspectives on Meeting Interaction

Recent Trends in Conversation Analysis

from Capturing and Understanding Dynamics and Processes of the Meeting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2015

By
Birte Asmuß
Edited by
Joseph A. Allen ,
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock  and
Steven G. Rogelberg
Joseph A. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Steven G. Rogelberg
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Get access

Summary

Abstract

Meetings consist of people talking to each other. While they talk, they also make use of other resources. They use embodied resources such as gaze, gesture, and body posture, and they make use of artifactual and spatial aspects. This chapter deals with meeting interaction from a multimodal perspective focusing on the orderly and structured ways in which meeting participants make use of themselves and the world around them to accomplish meeting-relevant activities. It starts with an introduction to basic conversation analytic assumptions that are of relevance for a multimodal approach to meetings, followed by an outline of the central steps in the move to a multimodal perspective within conversation analysis. It then presents central studies on meetings applying a multimodal perspective. This is followed by a brief discussion of some of the challenges related to data collection, data transcription, and analysis when a multimodal perspective is applied. Finally, two excerpts from two different sets of strategy meetings are analyzed to illustrate how a multimodal conversation analysis can contribute to meeting research.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 277 - 304
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asmuß, B. (2013). The emergence of symmetries and asymmetries in performance appraisal interviews: An interactional perspective. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34, 553–570. doi: 10.1177/0143831×13489045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmuß, B. (2012). Conversation analysis and meetings. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0210Google Scholar
Asmuß, B. (2008). Performance appraisals: Preference organization in assessment sequences. Journal of Business Communication, 45, 408–429. doi: 10.1177/0021943608319382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmuß, B., & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies, 14, 107–126. doi: 10.1177/1461445611427215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmuß, B., & Svennevig, J. (2009). Meeting talk. An introduction. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 3–22. doi: 10.1177/0021943608326761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Ed.) (1984). Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bolden, G. B. (2003). Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture, 3, 187–212. doi: 10.1075/gest.3.2.04bolCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (Ed.). (2013a). Conversation analytic studies of multimodal interaction [Special issue]. Journal of Pragmatics, 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2013b). Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1700–1712. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dionysiou, D. D., & Tsoukas, H. (2013). Understanding the (re)creation of routines from within: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 38, 181–205. doi: 10.5465/amr.2011.0215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djordjilovic, O. (2012). Displaying and developing team identity in workplace meetings – a multimodal perspective. Discourse Studies, 14, 111–127. doi: 10.1177/1461445611427205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Egbert, M. (1996). Context sensitivity in conversation analysis: Eye gaze and the German repair initiator bitte? Language in Society, 25, 587–612. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500020820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairhurst, G., & Putnam, L.L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1468–2885.2004.tb00301.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94–118. doi:10.2307/3556620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. (2008). Women speaking up: Getting and using turns in workplace meetings. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, C. E., & Stickle, T. (2012). Securing recipiency in workplace meetings: Multimodal practices. Discourse Studies, 14, 11–30. doi: 10.1177/1461445611427213CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (Eds.) (2010a): Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., Vaara, E. (Eds.). (2010b): Introduction: What is strategy as practice. In Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1980). Restarts, pauses and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 272–302. doi: 10.1111/j.1475–682X.1980.tb00023.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1986). Gestures as a resource for the organization of mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62, 29–49. doi: 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1–2.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In Kita, S. (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62, 51–75. doi: 10.1515/semi.1986.62.1–2.51Google Scholar
Haddington, P., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2013). Interaction and mobility. Language and the body in motion. Berlin, Germany: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausendorf, H., Mondada, L., & Schmitt, R. (Eds.). (2012). Raum als interaktive Ressource. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2007). Gesture and institutional interaction: Figuring bids in auctions of fine art and antiques. Gesture, 7, 215–240. doi: 10.1075/gest.7.2.05heaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2011). Gesture and institutional interaction. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.), Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Luff, P., & Knoblauch, H. (2004). Tools, technologies and organizational interaction: The emergence of “workplace studies.” In Grant, D., Oswick, C., & Putnam, L. (Eds.), The handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 337–359). London, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2013). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 57–76). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1988). Explanations as accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In Antaki, C. (Ed.), Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 127–144). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action. Interactions, identities and institutions. Malden, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis. Principles, practices and applications. Oxford, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1984). Transcription symbols. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. ix–xvi). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, G., Langley, A., Melin, L., & Whittington, R. (2007). Strategy as practice: Research directions and resources. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langley, A., & Tsoukas, H. (2010). Introducing perspectives on process organization studies. In Hernes, T. & Maitlis, S. (Eds.), Perspectives on process organization studies – process, sensemaking & organizing (pp. 1–26). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LeBaron, C. (2008). Microethnography. In Tracy, K. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (pp. 1–5). Cambridge, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
LeBaron, C. D., & Sreeck, J. (1997). Built space and the interactional framing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies, 20, 1–25. doi: 10.1023/A:1005305331171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, A., & Mondada, L. (2009). Assessments in social interaction: Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42, 299–308. doi: 10.1080/08351810903296457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (Eds.) (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing systems design. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, R. (2011). Strategic management (6th ed.). Harlow, UK: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Markaki, V. & Mondada, L. (2012). Embodied orientations towards co-participants in multinational meetings. Discourse Studies, 14, 31–52. doi:10.1177/1461445611427210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: ethnography and conversational analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2006). Participants' online analysis and multimodal practices: Projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8, 117–129. doi: 10.1177/1461445606059561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007a). Interaktionsraum und Koordinierung. In Schmitt, R. (Ed.), Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion (pp. 55–94). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007b). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9, 194–225. doi: 10.1177/14614456087075346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2008). Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9, 1–35.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2012). The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual meetings. Language in Society, 41, 213–235. doi: 10.1017/S004740451200005XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013a). Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 39–68. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013b). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 32–56). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mortensen, K. (2013). Conversation analysis and multimodality. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1061–1068). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nicolini, D. (2013). Practice theory, work and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oloff, F. (2013). Embodied withdrawal after overlap resolution. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 139–156. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, L. L., Nicotera, A. M., & McPhee, R. D. (2009). Introduction: Communication constitutes organization. In Putnam, L. L. & Nicotera, A. M. (Eds.), Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication (pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 21–27). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation, Vol. II. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some gestures' relation to talk. In Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 266–296). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In Boden, D. & Zimmerman, D. H. (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2002). Beginnings in the telephone. In Katz, J. E. & Aakhus, M. A. (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 325–382). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. doi: 10.2307/413107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, R. (2013). Körperlich-räumliche Aspekte der Interaktion. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
Schmitt, R. (Ed.). (2007). Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion. Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
Selting, M., & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (Eds.). (2001). Studies in interactional linguistics, grammar and discourse. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2006). Coordinating gesture, talk, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 377–409. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2013). Basic conversation analytic methods. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 77–99). Cambridge, UK: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steensig, J. (2012). Conversation analysis and affiliation and alignment. In Mortensen, K. & Wagner, J. (Eds.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics: Conversation analysis. Cambridge, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Steensig, J., & Asmuß, B. (2005). Notes on disaligning ‘yes but’ initiated utterances in German and Danish conversations: Two construction types for dispreferred responses. In Hakulinen, A.& Selting, M. (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 349–373). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (Eds.). (2005a). Multimodal interaction [Special Issue]. Semiotica, 156.Google Scholar
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2005b). Introduction: Multimodal interaction. Semiotica, 156, 1–20. doi: 10.1515/semi.2005.2005.156.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Sidnell, J. (2013). Introduction. In Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 1–8). Cambridge, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2013). The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46, 1–21. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2013.780341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokoe, E. (2014). The conversation analytic role-play method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60, 275–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (2003). The body taken for granted: Lingering the dualism in research on social interaction. In Glenn, P., LeBaron, C., & Mandelbaum, J. (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 427–440). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (2011). Embodied interaction in the material world: An introduction. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.), Embodied interaction: language and body in the material world (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., & Mehus, S. (2005). Microethnography: The study of practices. In Fitch, K. & Sanders, R. (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 381–404). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2012a). Interaction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14, 3–10. doi: 10.1177/1461445611427203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svennevig, J. (2012b). The agenda as a resource for topic introduction in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiitinen, S., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2014). Using formulations and gaze to encourage parents to talk about their and their children's health and well-being. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47, 49–68. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2014.871805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasui, E. (2013). Collaborative idea construction: Repetition of gestures and talk in joint brainstorming. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 157–172. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×