Preparing Next Actions in Routine Activities

Abstract

Projection is one of the classic topics in conversation analysis. It is introduced in the “simplest systematics” (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) as a principle that enables the recognition of unit types constituting turn-constructional units ¹ (TCUs) and thereby the recognition of possible completion, which is relevant for the organization of turn-taking. Additional clarification of this concept has developed that projection is achieved through syntactic and prosodic constructions and pragmatically and lexico-semantically specified contexts during the accomplishment of a specific task (which can be a “larger project,” such as an argumentation or a narration). We consider that the multimodal approach to conversation, which we have adopted as our basis, should broaden the concept of projection. Our contribution is meant to demonstrate that not only the shape and possible completion of TCUs and turns is projected, but also that potential nexts are prepared; announced; and, in this broader sense, projected. To prevent terminological confusion, we propose to introduce “preparation” as a cover term and to reserve “projection” for the classic turn-oriented approach. Some relevant aspects of preparation are exemplified with videotaped episodes from a butcher's stall in a market near a midsized city in Germany.

¹In conversation analysis, a turn is the talk of one person between two speaker changes (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Turn-constructional units in English “include sentential, clausal, phrasal, and lexical constructions.… Instances of the unit-types so usable allow a projection of the unit-type under way, and what, roughly, it will take for an instance of that unit-type to be completed” (p. 702).

Notes

¹In conversation analysis, a turn is the talk of one person between two speaker changes (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Turn-constructional units in English “include sentential, clausal, phrasal, and lexical constructions.… Instances of the unit-types so usable allow a projection of the unit-type under way, and what, roughly, it will take for an instance of that unit-type to be completed” (p. 702).

²In his 1984 article, “On Some Gesture's Relation to Talk,” Schegloff put things differently: Nonverbal actions are seen as supplementary resources for the interpretation of talk. For a critique of this position, see Cosnier and Brossard (1984) and their concept of synergy, Levinson (2005), or Dausendschön and Krafft (2001, 2002) on a holistic approach to multimodal communication.

³

The accomplishment of social action requires that not only the party producing an action, but also that others present, such as its addressee, be able to systematically recognize the shape and character of what is occurring. Without this it would be impossible for separate parties to recognize in common not only what is happening at the moment, but more crucially, what range of events are being projected as relevant nexts, such that an addressee can build not just another independent action, but instead a relevant coordinated next move to what someone else has just done (Goodwin, 2000, p. 1491)

The ways in which participants' concurrent activities contribute to the shaping of units of talk are developed in Goodwin and Goodwin (1987); they underlined the fact that both sequential organization and simultaneous activity have to be taken into consideration for the interpretation of sense making in conversation.

⁴“Neither TCUs nor possible turns can be defined with reference to syntax or prosody alone. Rather, TCUs and turns are the result of the interplay of syntax and prosody in a given semantic, pragmatic, and sequential context. Syntactic and prosodic construction schemata are flexible schemata which participants deploy and exploit in a flexible and recipient designed way in their practices of unit construction and interpretation in talk” (Selting, 2000, p. 511).

⁵The 135–min, uninterrupted recording was done with two overt digital cameras in opposite corners of the stall. Two observers were present in the field, but did not interact in any way. There were a considerable number of customers in front of the stall, single and in groups; three members of staff are responsible for the activities behind the counter: the butcher (S1), his wife (S2), and a female employee (S3).

⁶The expressions “right-hand side” and “left-hand side” are used to denote directions as seen from the inside of the stall (i.e., looking toward the customers).

⁷The marker so occurs frequently in our recording. It figures in almost every sales interaction—sometimes more than once—and is only used by the assistants. So is used not to structure discourse (so the term “discourse marker” does not really seem appropriate) but to structure the interaction; it marks the end of an activity (or part of an activity) and indicates that the next one can now be tackled. So is an articulated prosodic gesture used to structure the interaction.

⁸After 14 min of recording, the example discussed here is the first one to start with an explicit verbal invitation by the assistant. In the first 30 min of our recording, the three assistants serve 25 customers. Three of them receive a direct verbal invitation to speak and 3 a humorous one. In 8 cases, the assistant clarifies whose turn it is to be served. Eleven interactions begin without any verbal utterance on the part of the assistant.

⁹He simultaneously advertises his merchandise, thus making it clear that he is not available: “dann gibt's noch fleischsalat wurstsalat (-) wer heute noch interesse hat ich hab auch noch schönes lammfleisch da frisches” ‘then there is meat salad ‘wurst’ salad (-) if anybody's interested I've got nice lamb fresh'.

¹⁰Wiping one's hands is a fairly obvious ending signal because it characteristically takes place at the end of an activity. However, it is worth pointing out that it is not originally a signal but a practical measure; its function as an ending signal in a conversational exchange results entirely from its position in the context.

¹¹To be fully attentive, one needs to be able to collect one's thoughts. This might be one of the organizational reasons why customers always have to wait a little, even in situations where there are more available assistants than waiting customers.

¹²Within the structure of the interaction, the question, “noch was bitte” ‘anything else’? has the status of an offer to close in Schegloff and Sacks's (1972) sense.