Designing Talk for Humans and Horses: Prosody as a Resource for Parallel Recipient Design

References

• Arminen, I., & Simonen, M. (2021). Expertise as a domain in interaction. Discourse Studies, 23(5), 577–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456211016797
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barske, T., & Golato, A. (2010). German ‘so’: Managing sequencing and action. Text & Talk, 30(3), 245–266. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2010.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergmann, J. R. (1988). Haustiere als kommunikative Ressourcen. In H.-G. Soeffner (Ed.), Kultur und Alltag (pp. 299–312). Schwarz.
   Google Scholar
• Birke, L. (2017). Meeting points. Choreographies of horses and humans. TRACE: Journal for Human-Animal Studies, 3, 54–70. https://doi.org/10.23984/fjhas.53189
   Google Scholar
• Bolton, H. C. (1897). The language used in talking to domestic animals. American Anthropologist, 10(3), 65–90. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1897.10.3.02a00000
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, K. (2004). A language of their own: An interactionist approach to human-horse communication. Society & Animals, 12(4), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568530043068010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandt, K. (2006). Intelligent bodies: Embodied subjectivity in human-horse communication. In D. Waskul & P. Vannini (Eds.), Body/Embodiment. Symbolic interaction and the sociology of the body (pp. 141–152). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002). What’s new, pussycat? On talking to babies and animals. Science, 296(5572), 1434–1435. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cornips, L. (2022). The animal turn in postcolonial linguistics: The interspecies greeting of the dairy cow. Journal of Postcolonial Linguistics, 6, 209–231. https://iacpl.net/jopol/issues/jopol6/the-animal-turn-in-postcolonial-linguistics/
   Google Scholar
• Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M. (2018). Interactional linguistics: Studying language in social interaction. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dashper, K. (2016). Learning to communicate: The triad of (mis)communication in horse riding lessons. In D. Davis & A. Maurstad (Eds.), The meaning of horses: Biosocial encounters (pp. 87–101). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A. (2015). When recipient design fails: Egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung, 16, 63–101. http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2015/ga-deppermann.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A., & Blühdorn, H. (2013). Negation als Verfahren des Adressatenzuschnitts: Verstehenssteuerung durch Interpretationsrestriktionen. Deutsche Sprache, 41(1), 6–30. https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-775X.2013.01.03
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann, A., & Schmidt, A. (2016). Partnerorientierung zwischen Realität und Imagination: Anmerkungen zu einem zentralen Konzept der Dialogtheorie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik, 44(3), 369–405. https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2016-0021
   Google Scholar
• Due, B. L. (2021). Interspecies intercorporeality and mediated haptic sociality: Distributing perception with a guide dog. Visual Studies, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2021.1951620
   Google Scholar
• Ehmer, O., & Brône, G. (2021). Instructing embodied knowledge: Multimodal approaches to interactive practices for knowledge constitution [ Special issue]. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0012
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Good, J. S., & Beach, W. A. (2005). Opening up gift-openings: Birthday parties as situated activity systems. Text, 25(5), 565–593. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.5.565
   Google Scholar
• Goode, D. (2006). Playing with my dog Katie: An ethnomethodological study of dog-human interaction. Purdue University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1979). The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 97–121). Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Harjunpää, K. (2022). Repetition and prosodic matching in responding to pets’ vocalizations. Langage & Société, 176(2), 69–102. https://doi.org/10.3917/ls.176.0071
   Google Scholar
• Heleski, C., Wickens, C., Minero, M., DallaCosta, E., Wu, C., Czeszak, E., & von Borstel, U. K. (2015). Do soothing vocal cues enhance horses’ ability to learn a frightening task? Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 10(1), 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2014.08.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis (Vol. 3, pp. 95–119). Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994). Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society, 23(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500017656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Treiman, R. (1982). Doggerel: Motherese in a new context. Journal of Child Language, 9(1), 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900003731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hitzler, S. (2013). Recipient Design in institutioneller Mehrparteieninteraktion. Gesprächsforschung, 14, 110–132. http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2013/ga-hitzler.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Huneke, H. W. (2004). Sprechen zu Tieren: Formen und Funktionen tiergerichteten Sprechens. Iudicium Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jeannin, S., Gilbert, C., & Leboucher, G. (2017). Effect of interaction type on the characteristics of pet-directed speech in female dog owners. Animal Cognition, 20(3), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-017-1077-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating, P. A. (1988). Underspecification in phonetics. Phonology, 5(2), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095267570000230X
   Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L., & Ogden, R. (2020a). Sounds on the margins of language [ Special issue]. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 53(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712961
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keevallik, L., & Ogden, R. (2020b). Sounds on the margins of language at the heart of interaction. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 53(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712961
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladd, D. R. (1978). Stylized intonation. Language, 54(3), 517–540. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurier, E., Maze, R., & Lundin, J. (2006). Putting the dog back in the park: Animal and human mind-in-action. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 13(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca1301_2
   Google Scholar
• LeBaron, C. D., & Jones, S. E. (2002). Closing up closings: Showing the relevance of the social and material surround to the completion of interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 542–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02561.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 161–227). Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Llewellyn, N., Hindmarsh, J., & Burrow, R. (2022). Coalitions of touch: Balancing restraint and haptic soothing in the veterinary clinic. Sociology of Health & Illness, 44(4–5), 725–744. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13458
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohi, H., & Simonen, M. (2021). Hugging and kissing a dog in distress. Litteraria Copernicana, 37(1), 107–122. https://apcz.umk.pl/LC/article/view/LC.2021.007
   Google Scholar
• Lundesjö Kvart, S. (2020). Instructions in horseback riding - the collaborative achievement of an instructional space. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 25, 100253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2018.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundesjö Kvart, & Melander Bowden, H. (2022). Instructing equestrian feel: On the art of teaching embodied knowledge. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(2), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1869076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundgren, C. (2017). Ridtränares kommunikation under privatlektioner i dressyr: En samtalsanalytisk studie [The communication of trainers in equestrian dressage: A multimodal interaction analysis]. Scandinavian Sport Studies Forum, 8, 67–86. https://sportstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/067-086_vol_8_lundgren.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Lundgren, C. (2020). What do trainers teach their riders about horses and riding? An interaction analysis study of sports dressage training. In J. Bornemark, P. Andersson, & U. Ekström von Essen (Eds.), Equine cultures in transition (pp. 342–362). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MacMartin, C., Coe, J. B., & Adams, C. L. (2014). Treating distressed animals as participants: I know responses in veterinarians’ pet-directed talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.900219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mazeland, H. (2019). Activities as discrete organizational domains. In E. Reber & C. Gerhardt (Eds.), Embodied activities in face-to-face and mediated settings: Social encounters in time and space (pp. 29–61). Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, C., & von Wedelstaedt, U. (2019). Multiparty coordination under time pressure: The social organization of handball team time-out activities. In E. Reber & C. Gerhardt (Eds.), Embodied activities in face-to-face and mediated settings: Social encounters in time and space (pp. 217–254). Palgrave MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R. W. (2001). Americans’ talk to dogs: Similarities and differences with talk to infants. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 183–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, R. W., & Edmonson, E. (1999). Functions of repetitive talk to dogs during play: Control, conversation, or planning? Society and Animals, 7(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853099X00167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014). The temporal orders of multiactivity. Operating and demonstrating in the surgical theatre. In P. Haddington, T. Keisanen, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Multiactivity in social interaction: Beyond multitasking (pp. 33–75). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2018a). 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2018b). Driving instruction at high speed on a race circuit: Issues in action formation and sequence organization. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 304–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2019). Conventions for multimodal transcriptions. Version 5.0.1. Retrieved December 13, 2022, from https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription
   Google Scholar
• Mondémé, C. (2018). How do we talk to animals? Modes and pragmatic effects of communication with pets. Langage et Société, 163(1), 77–99. https://www.cairn-int.info/journal-langage-et-societe-2018-1-page-77.htm
   Google Scholar
• Mondémé, C. (2019). La socialité interspécifique. Une analyse multimodale des interactions homme – Chien. Lambert–Lucas.
   Google Scholar
• Mondémé, C. (2020). Touching and petting. Exploring ”haptic sociality” in interspecies interaction. In A. Cekaite & L. Mondada (Eds.), Touch in social interaction: Touch, language and body (pp. 171–196). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mondémé, C. (2021a). Why study turn-taking sequences in interspecies interaction? Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 52(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtsb.12295
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mondémé, C. (2021b). Interspecies haptic sociality in equestrian grooming activities. Presentation at the 17th International Pragmatics Conference, Winterthur.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. (2012). Teaching touch/response-feel. A first step to an analysis of touch from an (inter)active perspective. In S. Norris (Ed.), Multimodality in practice: Investigating theory-in-practice-through-methodology (pp. 7–19). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ogden, R. (2020). Audibly not saying something with clicks. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pillet-Shore, D. (2012). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, D. J. (2019). Assessments in transition: Coordinating participation framework transition in institutional settings. In E. Reber & N. Gerhardt (Eds.), Embodied activities in face-to-face and mediated settings: Social encounters in time and space (pp. 299–326). Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Reed, D. J., & Szczepek Reed, B. (2013). Building an instructional project: Actions as components of music masterclasses. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk – Units of action (pp. 313–341). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Rettig, H. (2020). Praktiken des Empathisierens in Reitunterricht und Pferdeausbildung. In K. Jacob, K.-P. Konerding, & W.-A. Liebert (Eds.), Sprache und Empathie (pp. 285–332). de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Rettig, H. (2022). Versuche der Grenzüberschreitung: Zur Rolle der Empathie in der Interspezies-Interaktion. In M. Lind (Ed.), Mensch – Tier – Maschine: Sprachliche Praktiken an und jenseits der Aussengrenzen des Humanen (pp. 195–227). transcript.
   Google Scholar
• Roberts, F. (2004). Speaking to and for animals in a veterinary clinic: A practice for managing interpersonal interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(4), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2003). An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Communication, 15(1), 27–59. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1501_2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2012). Overall structural organization. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 257–280). Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Everyday language: Studies in ethnomethodology (pp. 15–21). Irvington.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in anaphora (pp. 437–485). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P., Günthner, S., Hartung, M., Kern, F., Mertzlufft, C., Meyer, C., Morek, M., Oberzaucher, F., Peters, J., Quasthoff, U., Schütte, W., and Uhmann, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2), Gesprächsforschung, 10, 353–402. Translated and adapted for English by Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Barth-Weingarten, D. (2011). Gesprächsforschung, 12, 1–51. http://www.gespraechsforschung-online.de/fileadmin/dateien/heft2011/px-gat2-englisch.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Simonen, M., & Lohi, H. (2021). Interactional reciprocity in human–dog interaction. In J. Lindström, R. Laury, A. Peräkylä, & M.-L. Sorjonen (Eds.), Intersubjectivity in action: Studies in language and social interaction (pp. 397–428). John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Stukenbrock, A. (2010). Überlegungen zu einem multimodalen Verständnis der gesprochenen Sprache am Beispiel deiktischer Verwendungsweisen des Ausdrucks so. InLiSt: Interaction and Linguistic Structures, (47). https://www.inlist.uni-bayreuth.de/issues/47/index.htm
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B. (2006). Prosodic orientation in English conversation. Palgrave.
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B. (2023). “Go on keep going”: The instruction of sustained embodied activities. Discourse Studies, 25(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231153578
   Google Scholar
• Szczepek Reed, B., Reed, D., & Haddon, E. (2013). NOW or NOT NOW: Coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in musical masterclasses. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.753714
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannen, D. (2004). Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 37(4), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3704_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tellington-Jones, L., & Lieberman, B. (2006). The ultimate horse behavior and training book. Trafalgar Square Books.
   Google Scholar
• Torres Cajo, S., & Bahlo, N. (2016). “Ach der ist ja süß … “ – Gassigespräche. Eine kommunikative Gattung in Hinblick auf Soziabilität und Zweckorientierung. Deutsche Sprache, 44(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.37307/j.1868-775X.2016.01.05
   Google Scholar
• Waran, N., McGrevy, P., & Casey, R. A. (2007). Training methods and horse welfare. In N. Waran (Ed.), The welfare of horses (pp. 151–180). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, S. (2011). Gender, routinization and recipient design. In S. A. Speer & E. Stokoe (Eds.), Conversation and gender (pp. 112–134). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, N., Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2013). Vowel hyperarticulation in parrot-, dog- and infant-directed speech. Anthrozoös, 26(3), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.2752/175303713X13697429463592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zetterqvist Blokhuis, M. (2019). Interaction between rider, horse and equestrian trainer. A challenging puzzle [Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations], 162. https://bibl.sh.se/skriftserier/hogskolans_skriftserier/Pub.aspx?divaid=diva2_1303083&
   Google Scholar
• Zetterqvist Blokhuis, M., & Lundgren, C. (2017). Rider’s perceptions of equestrian communication in sports dressage. Society & Animals, 25(6), 573–591. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar