Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter Mouton April 20, 2022

Lifting the pen and the gaze: embodied recruitment in collaborative writing

Jakub Mlynář
From the journal Text & Talk

Abstract

This article investigates sequences of collaborative writing that are part of classroom interaction in student dyads and triads working with a digital device and a paper worksheet. In analyzing instances from a corpus of 18 h of video recordings made in five high-school classrooms through an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approach, I focus on two embodied practices which do the work of recruiting assistance during the course of inscribing: lifting the pen and lifting the gaze. These practices are viewed as ordinary digressions from the basic posture of the writing body. I demonstrate that lifting the pen as a recruitment practice can be done as a brief stopping of the pen in its movement, as wrist rotation, or as hand elevation. Lifting the gaze can have varying temporal properties and occur synchronously with hand-on-face gestures. I conclude that collaborative writing underlines the indeterminacy of bodily practices as either recruitments, requests or contributions to joint courses of action. I also suggest that the identified practices may be further investigated as components of the specific speech-exchange system inherent to the activity of writing together.


Corresponding author: Jakub Mlynář, Malach Centre for Visual History, Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Malostranské náměstí 25, 118 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic, E-mail:

Funding source: Charles University Research Center

Award Identifier / Grant number: 9

Funding source: Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship

Award Identifier / Grant number: 2017.0307

Acknowledgments

The data analyzed in this article was collected while I was working on a project devised and conducted in the Department of Social Sciences, University of Fribourg, supported by the Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship for Foreign Scholars and Artists for the 2017–18 Academic Year (no. 2017.0307). For their help during the project, I thank Alfons Adam, Marek Brožek, Urs Fischer, Esther González-Martínez, Jiří Kocián, Katka Kristová, Marcel Mahdal, Magali Michelet, Gilles Saillen, Christina Späti, Stephan Stach, Monika Stehlíková and all participating students. I am also grateful to Esther González-Martínez, Bastien Taverney, Sylvia Trieu, and the two anonymous reviewers for their detailed comments and valuable suggestions on a previous version of this paper. Many thanks to Elisabeth Lyman for editing the final manuscript. The analysis presented in this article and the preparation of the text was supported by Charles University Research Centre No. 9 (UNCE VITRI).

Appendix

Notation of speech (based on Jefferson 2004)

[ ] Overlapping talk.
(.) Micro-pause.
(2.1) Pause in seconds.
. Final intonation.
>yes< Notably faster talk.
<no> Notably slower talk.
(kuk) Estimated hearing.
( ) Inaudible segment.
a:: Vocal prolongation.
Ge- Cut-off.
Higher pitch.
= Rapid continuation (latching).
.hh/hh Inhalation and exhalation.
.nh Nasal inhalation.
n(h)o Laughter particle within word.
NO Louder volume.
not Emphasis.

Notation of embodied action (based on Mondada 2018)

* * Two symbols delimit descriptions (one symbol per
% % participant) synchronized with talk.
$––> Described action continues across subsequent lines
>––$ until the same symbol is reached.
fig Indication of video screenshot displayed as figure.
# Exact position of screenshot within the turn.

References

Abe, Makoto. 2020. Interactional practices for online collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 49. 100752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100752.Search in Google Scholar

Ayaß, Ruth. 2014. Using media as involvement shields. Journal of Pragmatics 72. 5–17.10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.003Search in Google Scholar

Balaman, Ufuk. 2021. The interactional organization of video-mediated collaborative writing: Focus on repair practices. TESOL Quarterly 55(3). 979–993. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3034.Search in Google Scholar

Barritt, Loren. 1981. Writing/speaking: A descriptive phenomenological view. In Barry M. Kroll & Roberta J. Vann (eds.), Exploring speaking-writing relationships: Connections and contrasts, 124–133. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.Search in Google Scholar

Beeke, Suzanne, Fiona Johnson, Firle Beckley, Claudia Heilemann, Susan Edwards, Jane Maxim & Wendy Best. 2014. Enabling better conversations between a man with aphasia and his conversation partner: Incorporating writing into turn taking. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(3). 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.925667.Search in Google Scholar

Coulmas, Florian. 2013. Writing and society: An introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139061063Search in Google Scholar

Deleuze, Gilles & Claire Parnet. 2006. Dialogues II, Revised edn. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2014. Requesting: From speech act to recruitment. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 1–34. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.26.01dreSearch in Google Scholar

Search in Google Scholar

Due, Brian & Thomas L. W. Toft. 2021. Phygital highlighting: Achieving joint visual attention when physically co-editing a digital text. Journal of Pragmatics 177. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.01.034.Search in Google Scholar

Foucault, Michel. 1977 [1969]. What is an author? In Donald F. Bouchard (ed.), Michel Foucault, language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews, 113–138. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fox, Barbara A. & Trine Heinemann. 2021. Are they requests? An exploration of declaratives of trouble in service encounters. Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(1). 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864154.Search in Google Scholar

Francese, Erica. 2019. Writing alone, writing together. Creation of a space of play through writing. Revue de Psychothérapie Psychanalytique de Groupe 72(1). 99–111. https://doi.org/10.3917/rppg.072.0099.Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 1993. A catalog of investigations with which to respecify topics of logic, order, meaning, method, reason, structure, science, and the rest, in, about, and as the workings of immortal ordinary society just in any actual case. What did we do? What did we learn? (Unpublished manuscript.) Available at the Garfinkel Archive in Newburyport, Massachusetts, USA.Search in Google Scholar

Garfinkel, Harold. 2002. Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism (Edited by Anne Warfield Rawls). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar

Gill, Virginia Teas, Timothy Halkowski & Felicia Roberts. 2001. Accomplishing a request without making one: A single case analysis of a primary care visit. Text 21(1–2). 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.21.1-2.55.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Jo Ann. 1975. A system for transfer of instructions in natural settings. Semiotica 14(3). 269–296. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1975.14.3.269.Search in Google Scholar

González-Martínez, Esther & Paul Drew. 2021. Informings as recruitment in nurses’ intrahospital telephone calls. Journal of Pragmatics 186. 48–59.10.1016/j.pragma.2021.09.013Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Charles. 1987. Unilateral departure. In Graham Button & John R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk and social organisation, 206–216. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Search in Google Scholar

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness & Charles Goodwin. 1986. Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica 62(1–2). 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1986.62.1-2.51.Search in Google Scholar

Heap, James L. 1989. Writing as social action. Theory into Practice 28(2). 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848909543394.Search in Google Scholar

Heidegger, Martin. 1962. Being and time. Oxford/Cambridge: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Herder, Anke, Jan Berenst, Kees de Glopper & TomKoole. 2020. Sharing knowledge with peers: Epistemic displays in collaborative writing of primary school children. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 24. 100378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100378.Search in Google Scholar

Herder, Anke, Jan Berenst, Kees de Glopper & Tom Koole. 2018. Nature and function of proposals in collaborative writing of primary school students. Linguistics and Education 46. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2018.04.005.Search in Google Scholar

Hindmarsh, Jon & Christian Heath. 2000. Sharing the tools of the trade: The interactional constitution of workplace objects. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 29(5). 517–556. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124100129023990.Search in Google Scholar

Hoey, Elliott M. 2020. Waiting to inhale: On sniffing in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 53(1). 118–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712962.Search in Google Scholar

Jakonen, Teppo. 2016. Gaining access to another participant’s writing in the classroom. Language and Dialogue 6(1). 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.06jak.Search in Google Scholar

Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar

Juvonen, Riita, Marie Tanner, Christina Olin-Scheller, Liisa Tainio & Anna Slotte. 2019. ‘Being stuck’: Analyzing text-planning activities in digitally rich upper secondary school classrooms. Learning, Culture & Social interaction 21. 196–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.03.006.Search in Google Scholar

Kendrick, Kobin H. 2021. The ‘other’ side of recruitment: Methods of assistance in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 178. 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.02.015.Search in Google Scholar

Kendrick, Kobin H. & Francisco Torreira. 2015. The timing and construction of preference: A quantitative study. Discourse Processes 52(4). 255–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2014.955997.Search in Google Scholar

Kendrick, Kobin H. & Paul Drew. 2016a. Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1). 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126436.Search in Google Scholar

Kendrick, Kobin H. & Paul Drew. 2016b. The boundary of recruitment: A response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1). 32–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126442.Search in Google Scholar

Komter, Martha L. 2006. From talk to text: The interactional construction of a police record. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39(3). 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2.Search in Google Scholar

Korbut, Andrei. 2019. A preliminary study of the orderliness of university student note-taking practices. In Tanya Tyagunova (ed.), Studentische Praxis und universitäre Interaktionskultur: Perspektiven einer praxeologischen Bildungsforschung, 119–142. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/978-3-658-21246-9_6Search in Google Scholar

Krishnan, Jenell, Andrew Cusimano, Dakuo Wang & Soobin Yim. 2018. Writing together: Online synchronous collaboration in middle school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 62(2). 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.871.Search in Google Scholar

Kristiansen, Elisabeth Dalby. 2017. Doing formulating: “Writing aloud voice” sequences as an interactional method. Journal of Pragmatics 114. 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.04.002.Search in Google Scholar

Lunsford, Andrea & Lisa Ede. 1990. Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lunsford, Andrea & Lisa Ede. 2011. Writing together: Collaboration in theory and practice. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.Search in Google Scholar

Magnusson, Simon. 2021. Establishing jointness in proximal multiparty decision-making: The case of collaborative writing. Journal of Pragmatics 181. 32–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.05.003.Search in Google Scholar

Manning, Susan M. 2018. Collaborative poetic processes: Methodological reflections on co-writing with participants. Qualitative Report 23(4). 742–757. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3185.Search in Google Scholar

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1973. The prose of the world. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mlynář, Jakub. 2021. Rewatching a video clip in classroom work with digital oral history. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée Special issue, Summer 2021(1). 57–76.Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. Requesting immediate action in the surgical operating room: Time, embodied resources and praxeological embeddedness. In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 269–302. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.26.11monSearch in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2016. Going to write: Embodied trajectories of writing of collective proposals in grassroots democracy meetings. Language and Dialogue 6(1). 140–178. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.05mon.Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza. 2018. Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(1). 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878.Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, Lorenza & Kimmo Svinhufvud. 2016. Writing-in-interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue 6(1). 1–53. https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.6.1.01mon.Search in Google Scholar

Morita, Emi. 2018. The interactiveness of ‘unilateral’ activity in child’s play. In Donald Favareau (ed.), Co-operative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin, 326–334. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mortensen, Kristian. 2013. Writing aloud: Some interactional functions of the public display of emergent writing. In Helinä Melkas & Jacob Buur (eds.), Proceedings of the participatory innovation conference PIN-C 2013, 119–125. Lahti: Lappeenranta University of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Nissi, Rikka. 2015. From entry proposals to a joint statement: Practices of shared text production in multiparty meeting interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 79. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.01.002.Search in Google Scholar

Pälli, Pekka & Esa Lehtinen. 2014. Making objectives common in performance appraisal interviews. Language and Communication 39. 92–108.10.1016/j.langcom.2014.09.002Search in Google Scholar

Paré, Anthony. 2014. Writing together for many reasons: Theoretical and historical perspectives. In Claire Aitchison & Cally Guerin (eds.), Writing groups for doctoral education and beyond: Innovations in theory and practice, 18–29. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ritchie, Stephen M. & Donna L. Rigano. 2007. Writing together metaphorically and bodily side‐by‐side: An inquiry into collaborative academic writing. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 8(1). 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940601139087.Search in Google Scholar

Rose, Edward. 1992. The Werald. Boulder: Waiting Room.Search in Google Scholar

Rossi, Giovanni. 2014. When do people not use language to make requests? In Paul Drew & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 303–334. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slsi.26.12rosSearch in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey & Emanuel A. Schegloff. 2002. Home position. Gesture 2(2). 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.2.2.02sac.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1978 [1974]. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In Jim Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, 7–55. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and grammar, 52–133. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511791208Search in Google Scholar

Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Search in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy. 2013. Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847699954Search in Google Scholar

Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.10.1075/gs.2Search in Google Scholar

Svensson, Hanna. 2017. Surveiller et corriger: l’accomplissement interactionnel de la révision d’une inscription publique. In Lorenza Mondada & Sara Keel (eds.), Participation et asymétries dans l’interaction institutionnelle, 203–233. Paris: L’Harmattan.Search in Google Scholar

Tiilikainen, Sanna & Ilkka Arminen. 2017. Together individually. In Anja R. Lahikainen, Tiina Mälkiä & Katja Repo (eds.), Media, family interaction and the digitalization of childhood, 155–170. Northampton/Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781785366673.00019Search in Google Scholar

Tuncer, Sylvaine, Christian Licoppe & Pentti Haddington. 2019. When objects become the focus of human action and activity: Object-centred sequences in social interaction. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 20. 384–398.Search in Google Scholar

van der Houwen, Fleur. 2013. Reported writing in court: Putting evidence “on record”. Text and Talk 33(6). 747–769. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0032.Search in Google Scholar

Zinken, Jörg & Giovanni Rossi. 2016. Assistance and other forms of cooperative engagement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1). 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1126439.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2020-08-10
Accepted: 2022-03-25
Published Online: 2022-04-20

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston