Visible Deflation: Embodiment and Emotion in Interaction

Abstract

This article identifies one embodied practice for implementing a recognizable action in interaction: what is here called “visible deflation.” This practice appears to embody a negative stance in response to a prior turn: one that is recognizable, and glossable, as “exasperation” in response to a prior turn. A number of instances of the practice captured in family interactions reveal how bodily resources are mobilized and organized with respect to the sequence of talk in which they are embedded; collectively they contribute to ongoing research in three domains: embodiment, the interactive construction of emotion, and family interaction. Data are in American and British English.

I am very grateful to the three anonymous referees whose scrupulous feedback helped me clarify aspects of the analysis and presentation of the data and to Charles Antaki for conscientious and constructive editorial support.

Notes

¹ I initially termed this “visual deflation,” but I thank Gene Lerner for proposing the change from “visual” to “visible,” which better captures it as an interactional practice.

² I thank Emanuel A. Schegloff for permission to use the clips from the “Virginia” corpus.

³ The edited nature of the footage clearly raises issues for the analyst, but I have tried wherever possible to indicate where there appears to be an edit from one camera to another that may have deleted some action (including talk). I hope it will be apparent that, as far as can be established, none of the extracts presented here has been analytically compromised.

⁴ The data have been transcribed according to the traditional CA Jeffersonian transcription system. Some visual information has been transcribed; I have tried to keep a balance between the readability of the transcript and analytic information for working purposes, and so have not sought to transcribe exhaustively what is visible on the tape. Some of the video clips start earlier than the transcription, to provide some more sequential context, but I have endeavored to keep the excerpts as concise as possible.

⁵ The reader is referred to two other accounts of this sequence in the context of other interactional practices: Schegloff (2005), who discusses “whining” as an interactional practice, and Couper-Kuhlen (2012), who examines responses to rejection. Both characterize the practice here identified as “visible deflation” as a form of “collapse” alongside what Schegloff refers to as a “hearable sigh of despair (“ugh!!”)” (2005, p. 465) and Couper-Kuhlen refers to as “a facial expression suggestive of pain” (2012, p. 462).

⁶ Schegloff (2005, p. 465) describes this as a “crucified” head position.

⁷ This recalls observations of Sacks and Schegloff on gesture: “the domain ‘gesture’ is a speaker’s domain. Speakers gesture, non-speakers don’t gesture” (2002, p. 14).

⁸ “Tension” and immobility are of course distinct; speakers are often engaged in activities in the course of talk.

⁹ That these are salient is evidenced by the common cultural associations, in writing, of “deflationary” actions with disappointment. These involve either facial configurations (e.g., “her face fell”) or upper-body deflations (e.g., shoulders slouching or slumping). To take one example: Julia Sweeney recalls responding to her young adopted daughter’s query to her, “Why don’t we get married?”: “I said, ‘It’s a distinctly different feeling (married people) have for each other. … It’s love, but a different kind of love. Some day you will understand, but that’s the best explanation I can give you right now. We just cannot get married.’ ‘Oh,’ Mulan said, slumping in her chair” (Sweeney, 2013). And the following is striking for being attributable to a whole category; in this case, the disappointment follows nonverbal action: “the ball … dribbled into the net behind him for a goal—setting off a shriek of excitement from Malawi’s corner, while several dozen Mongolians slumped in disappointment” (Ginsberg, 2005).

¹⁰ In the context of deflations, the term “speaker” might appear inaccurate, but I retain it here for the purpose of tracking the verbal context in which the deflation is performed.

¹¹ A few minutes prior to this, Mom had complained to Virginia: “You sound like a broken record.”

¹² It is at this point (before line 11, and the cut to the camera on Emily’s face) that the footage (on the basis of Emily’s line 11) appears to have been edited.

¹³ Furthermore, Emily subsequently turns her gaze away from Jane off to the right. In the light of C. Goodwin’s (2007) observation that gaze implicates visible attention and moreover a cooperative stance, this implies a very visible shift away from both attention and cooperation.

¹⁴ Compare Rae on another postural shift: “The sudden dropping of the user’s left hand from touching his eyebrow could be a harbinger of a change in orientation” (2001, p. 266); not here the antagonist sense of being thwarted but similar in the sense of abandoning an assumed position.

¹⁵ Simon’s forceful abandonment of his computer activity, turning to gaze at Emily at the same time as Jane produces the visible deflation, and his theatrical burst of laughter, accompanied by a “surrender” gesture with his arms, is vigorous, animated, and expressive as Jane’s is contained.

¹⁶ Of course, surprise tokens, unlike deflations, may be either negatively or positively valenced.

¹⁷ Simultaneously with Jane’s launch of the rebuke at line 44, Charlotte—hitherto absorbed in her own activity of tearing paper—looks up for the first time, glancing at Jane and then across to Simon, apparently prompted by Simon’s laughter in response to Emily. Her line 53 to Emily, “Are you actually joking?,” is hearable as an elaborate form of ritualized disbelief (Heritage, 1984, p. 339).