Sighing in Interaction: Somatic, Semiotic, and Social

Hoey, Elliott M.

doi:10.1080/08351813.2014.900229

Cited by 76 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1979, 1984, 1985, 2004) opened up whole seams of interactional research for linguists, whatever their subdisciplinary affiliations, from semantics to phonetics. Jefferson's later discussion of 'a frog in the throat' (2010) paved the way for further work on other sorts of vocalisations; for example, Hoey (2014) shows how sighing accomplishes specific work in interaction and that "the variable positioning and delivery of sighs [are] responsive to and relevant for ongoing, incipient, and concluding units of action" (196).…”

Section: On Actions Through Practices: What Linguistics Does For Ca mentioning

confidence: 99%

Actions in practice: On details in collections

Clift

Raymond

2018

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several of the contributions to the Lynch, et al. (2016) special issue make the claim that conversation-analytic research into epistemics is "routinely crafted at the expense of actual, produced and constitutive detail, and what that detail may show us" (Macbeth and Wong, 2016: 585-6). Here we seek to address the inappositeness of this critique by tracing precisely how it is that recognisable actions emerge from distinct practices of interaction. We begin by reviewing some of the foundational tenets of conversation-analytic theory and methodincluding the relationship between position and composition, and the making of collectionsas these appear to be primary sources of confusion for many of the contributors to the Lynch, et al. special issue. We then target some of the specific arguments presented in the special issue, including the alleged 'over-hearer's' writing of metrics, the provision of so-called 'alternative' analyses, and the supposed 'crafting' of generalizations in epistemics research. In addition, in light of Lynch's (2016: 18) more general assertion that CA has recently been experiencing a "rapprochement" with what he disparagingly refers to as the "juggernaut" of linguistics, we discuss the specific expertise that linguists have to offer in analyzing particular sorts of interactional detail. The paper as a whole thus illustrates that, rather than being produced "at the expense of actual, produced and constitutive detail," conversation-analytic findings-including its work in epistemics-are unambiguously anchored in such detail. We conclude by offering our comments as to the link between CA and linguistics more generally, arguing that this relationship has long proven to be-and indeed continues to be-a mutually beneficial one.

show abstract

Section: On Actions Through Practices: What Linguistics Does For Ca mentioning

confidence: 99%

Actions in practice: On details in collections

Clift

Raymond

2018

Discourse Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In line 7, the client begins her turn with a sigh, which has been found to work as an ‘affect forecast’ (Hoey, ), commonly and also in this case understood as a marker for negative affect. By positioning herself as not in control of her emotions (line 7) and then as the feelings of guilt being a consequence of the event of her ‘doing something really wrong’, she accomplishes several things: The sentence is structured as a confession which disclaims any moral irresponsibility.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing a moral identity in debt advice conversations

Andelic

Stevenson

Feeney

2018

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has found that stigma can be a barrier to service use but there has been little work examining actual service encounters involving members of stigmatized groups. One such group are those with problematic or unmanageable debts. Providing advice to members of this group is likely to be particularly difficult due to the stigma associated with being in debt. Using conversation analysis and discursive psychology, this study examines 12 telephone advice conversations between debt advisors and individuals in debt. Both clients and advisors oriented to the negative moral implications of indebtedness and typically worked collaboratively to manage these issues. Clients often claimed a moral disposition as a way to disclaim any unwanted associations with debt, but could find it difficult to reconcile this with an insolvency agreement. Moreover, the institutional requirements of the interaction could disrupt the collaborative management of stigma and advisors could manage the subsequent resistance from clients in either client‐centred or institution‐centred ways. The findings suggest that the products offered by debt advice agencies, as well as the manner in which they are offered to clients, can either help or hinder debtors negotiate the stigma‐related barriers to service engagement.

show abstract

“…At lines 11–13, as the Chair confirms the primary reviewer’s (Dharanipragada’s) score, the secondary reviewer, Jack—having originally submitted a weaker written score of three—responds to Dharanipragada’s score announcement with an audible and embodied stance display: Jack visibly deflates (Clifton, 2014) as he slumps down in his chair and he tightens his lips in a grimace while producing an audible outbreath, a configuration of semiotic resources recognizable as a sigh (Hoey, 2014). The organization of this display prior to the recognizable beginning of Jack’s turn—what Hoey terms a “prebeginning sigh”—projects the dispreferred nature of his own incipient score report, as does the silence at line 10 (which further delays Jack’s response).…”

Section: Laughter In the Score-reporting Sequencementioning

confidence: 99%

Laughter and the management of divergent positions in peer review interactions

Raclaw

Ford

2017

Journal of Pragmatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we focus on how participants in peer review interactions use laughter as a resource as they publicly report divergence of evaluative positions, divergence that is typical in the give and take of joint grant evaluation. Using the framework of conversation analysis, we examine the infusion of laughter and multimodal laugh-relevant practices into sequences of talk in meetings of grant reviewers deliberating on the evaluation and scoring of high-level scientific grant applications. We focus on a recurrent sequence in these meetings, what we call the score-reporting sequence, in which the assigned reviewers first announce the preliminary scores they have assigned to the grant. We demonstrate that such sequences are routine sites for the use of laugh practices to navigate the initial moments in which divergence of opinion is made explicit. In the context of meetings convened for the purposes of peer review, laughter thus serves as a valuable resource for managing the socially delicate but institutionally required reporting of divergence and disagreement that is endemic to meetings where these types of evaluative tasks are a focal activity.

show abstract

Sighing in Interaction: Somatic, Semiotic, and Social

Cited by 76 publications

References 67 publications

Actions in practice: On details in collections

Actions in practice: On details in collections

Managing a moral identity in debt advice conversations

Laughter and the management of divergent positions in peer review interactions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About