Emotion in Multilingual Interaction [1 ed.] 9789027266750, 9789027256713

Citation preview

Emotion in Multilingual Interaction edi t ed by Matthew T. Prior Gabriele Kasper

John Benjamins Publishing Company

Emotion in Multilingual Interaction

Pragmatics & Beyond New Series (P&bns) issn 0922-842X Pragmatics & Beyond New Series is a continuation of Pragmatics & Beyond and its Companion Series. The New Series offers a selection of high quality work covering the full richness of Pragmatics as an interdisciplinary field, within language sciences. For an overview of all books published in this series, please see http://benjamins.com/catalog/pbns

Editor

Associate Editor

Anita Fetzer

Andreas H. Jucker

University of Augsburg

University of Zurich

Founding Editors Jacob L. Mey

Herman Parret

Jef Verschueren

Robyn Carston

Sachiko Ide

Deborah Schiffrin

Thorstein Fretheim

Kuniyoshi Kataoka

Paul Osamu Takahara

John C. Heritage

Miriam A. Locher

University of Southern Denmark

Belgian National Science Foundation, Universities of Louvain and Antwerp

Belgian National Science Foundation, University of Antwerp

Editorial Board University College London University of Trondheim University of California at Los Angeles

Susan C. Herring

Indiana University

Masako K. Hiraga

St. Paul’s (Rikkyo) University

Japan Women’s University Aichi University

Universität Basel

Georgetown University Kobe City University of Foreign Studies

Sandra A. Thompson

Sophia S.A. Marmaridou

University of California at Santa Barbara

Srikant Sarangi

Teun A. van Dijk

University of Athens Aalborg University

Marina Sbisà

University of Trieste

Volume 266 Emotion in Multilingual Interaction Edited by Matthew T. Prior and Gabriele Kasper

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona

Yunxia Zhu

The University of Queensland

Emotion in Multilingual Interaction Edited by

Matthew T. Prior Arizona State University

Gabriele Kasper University of Hawai'i at M¯anoa

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam / Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

doi 10.1075/pbns.266 Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress: lccn 2016019597 (print) / 2016028747 (e-book) isbn 978 90 272 5671 3 (Hb) isbn 978 90 272 6675 0 (e-book)

© 2016 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Company · https://benjamins.com

Table of contents

Transcription conventions Chapter 1 Introduction. Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction: Theoretical and methodological perspectives Matthew T. Prior Chapter 2 Smiling together, laughing together: Multimodal resources projecting affect in L1/L2 conversational storytelling Gavin Lamb Chapter 3 ‘Like Godzilla’: Enactments and formulations in telling a disaster story in Japanese Alfred Rue Burch and Gabriele Kasper Chapter 4 Orienting to a co-participant’s emotion in French L2: A resource to participate in and sustain a conversation Evelyne Berger and Virginie Fasel Lauzon Chapter 5 On doing Japanese awe in English talk Tim Greer Chapter 6 Emotional stances and interactional competence: Learning to calibrate disagreements, objections, and refusals Asta Cekaite

vii

1

29

57

87

111

131

vi

Emotion in Multilingual Interaction

Chapter 7 Negative self-categorization, stance, affect, and affiliation in autobiographical storytelling Priti Sandhu Chapter 8 Affective formulations in multilingual healthcare settings Federico Farini Chapter 9 Formulating and scaling emotionality in L2 qualitative research interviews Matthew T. Prior Chapter 10 ‘It hurts to hear that’: Representing the feelings of foreigners on Japanese television Gavin Ken Furukawa Chapter 11 Humor, laughter, and affect in multilingual comedy performances in Hawai‘i Toshiaki Furukawa Chapter 12 The construction of emotion in multilingual computer-mediated interaction Marta González-Lloret Author index Subject index

153

177

203

237

267

289

313 319

Transcription conventions Based on Jefferson (2004)

Symbols Meanings [ Point of overlap onset ] Point of overlap ending = No break or gap in speech (latched speech), or continuation of the same turn by the same speaker even though the turn is broken up in the transcript (0.5) Silence measured in tenths of seconds (.) A brief pause of about one tenth of a second : Prolongation of the immediately prior sound; the longer the colon row, the longer the prolongation ↑ A shift into especially high pitch in the next sound ↓ A shift into especially lower pitch in the next sound . Falling intonation ? Rising intonation , Slightly rising intonation WORD Especially loud sounds compared to the surrounding talk owordo Especially quiet sounds compared to the surrounding talk word Emphasized segment #word# ‘Creaky’ voice £word£ ‘Smiley’ voice (word) Transcriber’s best guess of the words or speaker word- A cut-off sound ( ) Unintelligible to transcriber Decreased speed compared to the surrounding talk >word< Increased speed compared to the surrounding talk .hhh Audible inbreath hhh Audible outbreath (h) Plosiveness, often associated with laughter, crying, breathlessness, etc. ((description)) Transcriber’s description → Focal line in analysis

References Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” In Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

Chapter 1

Introduction Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction: Theoretical and methodological perspectives Matthew T. Prior

Arizona State University

1. Introduction This volume investigates how speakers of various languages and language varieties communicate and manage emotion in talk across a range of social activities and settings. By conceptualizing emotion as action-in-interaction, as joint discursive and extra-discursive productions, it breaks with the prevalent view of emotions as intra-psychological and neurophysiological phenomena that yet dominates the social sciences and humanities (though no longer without challenge; e.g., Baider and Cislaru 2014; Edwards 1999; Hochschild 2012; Peräkylä and Sorjonen 2012; Planalp 1999; Suzuki 2006; Wetherell 2012). Focusing analytic attention on real-life interactions involving multilingual speakers, contexts, and topics, the contributors advance the emerging ethnomethodologically-inspired project of respecifying (Button 1991) emotion as a multisemiotic resource and collaborative achievement by revealing how it is socially constituted, publicly displayed, and visibly and consequentially produced by participants for each other on specific occasions in and across their activities. By adopting an interaction-based approach to emotion, the contributors draw on well-established, converging research traditions in conversation analysis (CA) (Antaki 2011; Drew and Heritage 2006; Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008; Peräkylä, Antaki, Vehviläinen, and Leudar 2008; Sidnell and Stivers 2013), discursive psychology (Edwards 1997; Potter 2012; Tileagă and Stokoe 2016), and ethno­ methodology (Garfinkel 1967; Heritage 1984; Maynard and Clayman 1991). These analytical approaches are further informed by interdisciplinary work on stylization (Auer 2007), interactional storytelling (Buttny 2004; de Fina and Georgakopoulou 2012; Kasper and Prior 2015; Liddicoat 2011; Mandelbaum 2013; Pavlenko 2007; Stivers 2013), multimodal analysis (Goodwin 2007; Heath and Luff 2013), as well as anthropological perspectives on language and emotion (e.g., Besnier 1990; Lutz doi 10.1075/pbns.266.01pri © 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company

2

Matthew T. Prior

1988; Lutz and Abu-Lughod 1990; Ochs 1996; Ochs and Schieffelin 1989; Wilce 2009). Together these chapters provide an empirically-­grounded examination of the dynamic intersection of emotion and interaction and offer models and methods for engaging with emotion as an object of scholarly research. Previous interaction-based studies of emotion have shown through detailed analyses of talk in natural settings how participants manage emotion and other putatively “psychological” matters (e.g., cognition, memory, attitude, perception) through the sequential deployment of semiotic resources, both vocal and nonvocal, how such displays are occasioned, what actions they perform, what inferences they generate for the participants, and what interactional and interpersonal consequences they engender. However, the antecedent research has concerned itself almost exclusively with emotion talk among “competent” (mostly) adult members and so-called “native,” “first language (L1),” or “monolingual” speakers, to the exclusion of individuals and groups who regularly navigate a broad spectrum of multilingual and multicultural settings, activities, competences, identities, and experiences. In second language (L2) and multilingualism research, the relationship between emotion and language has always been acknowledged; however, the analytical treatment of emotion often consists of glossing a person’s affective state (e.g., as angry, anxious, shy, happy), explaining emotions as biochemical responses to external stimuli, or implicating particular affective states as behavioral triggers. As a result, emotions have predominantly been addressed through ad-hoc descriptions or treated as hypothetical constructs, operationalized through various quantitative and qualitative measures and thereby made inferentially available to the researcher. What have frequently escaped analytical attention are the ways in which emotion gets produced, displayed, oriented to, and managed by interactants in the midst of their ongoing activities. This volume seeks to bridge these methodological and analytical lacunae by extending the existing research traditions on the discursive construction and management of emotion to multilingual speakers and contexts, examining how individuals representing a range of sociolinguistic backgrounds and competencies construct emotion-implicative actions, identities, stances, and social and intra-­psychological worlds through their affective, interactional work in ordinary conversation and institutional settings. Contexts explored in these chapters include face-to-face conversation; computer-mediated environments; medical, educational, and broadcast media settings; and qualitative research interviews. Languages represented include Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Hawai‘i Creole, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, and Swedish.



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

The following section first reviews some of the major theoretical and empirical traditions and challenges in the study of emotion and then situates the chapters in a socio-interactional approach to emotion as joint discursive practices. 2. Definitional challenges Scholars throughout history have faced the problem of getting a firm descriptive and scientific grip on emotion. From the tensions between logic and emotion in Aristotle’s logos and pathos (Kristjánsson 2007; Maynard 2002) to Charles Darwin’s assertion of the biological basis for the universality of emotion expression (Darwin and Ekman 1998), William James’ (1884) theory that emotion derives from physiological responses, and the diverse lines of contemporary emotion scholarship (e.g., Clough and Halley 2007; Damasio 1994; Edwards 1997, 1999; Ekman and Davidson 1994; Hochschild 2012; Kagan 2007; Kalat and Shiota 2007; Lewis, Haviland-­Jones, and Barrett 2008; Oatley 2004; Pavlenko 2005; Wilce 2009), it is evident that emotion remains an intriguing yet elusive concept. Emotions, collectively and individually, have been theorized in terms of their origins and attributes: e.g., physiological, psychological, irrational, self-controlled, unconscious, instinctual, basic, interior, universal, social, moral, and gendered. As Fehr and Russell (1984: 464) remark in their oft-cited quote, “[e]veryone seems to know what an emotion is, until asked to give a definition. Then, it seems, no one knows.” In psychology, where emotions are often defined as “ongoing states of mind that are marked by mental, bodily, or behavioral symptoms” (Parrott 2001a: 3) and inferred “reactions to external stimuli” (Plutchik 1991: 159), there remains disagreement over how best to distinguish among, for example, emotion, affect, and feelings (for sociological and social psychological perspectives, see Edwards 1997, 1999; Lutz 1988; Ochs and Schieffelin 1989; Wetherell 2012). These definitional matters are further complicated by questions of how to categorize long-term emotions (e.g., love), moods (e.g., depression, anxiety), dispositions (e.g., benevolence), emotional states (i.e., situational and momentary) and traits (i.e., stable personality) (Coan and Allen 2007; Dörnyei 2009), and various intensities, perceptions, and sensory feedback (Lewis et al. 2008). An added difficulty in emotion research is the inconsistent operationalization of emotions and their labels through questionnaires and other self-report procedures, experimental treatments, and other quantitative and qualitative measures (Ben-Ze’ev 2000; Coan and Allen 2007; Dewaele 2010; Dörnyei 2009; Lewis et al. 2008). As with all scholarly inquiry, perspective shapes definition. Parrott (2001b: 376) contends that a definition of emotion rests on whether one is speaking as researcher or layperson: “Emotion terms have developed for the purposes of speakers of

3

4

Matthew T. Prior

the language; these purposes often include judgments of the appropriateness of a person’s actions, but social psychologists do not necessarily share those purposes” (see also Edwards 1997, 1999; Wetherell 2012). Scientific definitions are notoriously at odds with laypersons’ own ‘folk psychological’ understandings. Whereas researchers seek to measure and test emotions in accordance with scientific procedures, laypersons are more concerned with emotion as a means of apprehending and responding to the world and their place within it. To individuals going about the business of everyday life, it matters little that their anger at their boss, for example, is associated with low cerebral spinal fluid levels of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (Bond and Wingrove 2010) or recurrent psychological stress in childhood. Neither are they likely to concern themselves with the fact that their delight at seeing a friend can be quantitatively substantiated by decreased heart rate, reduced muscle tension, or lower levels of skin-conductance (McMillan 2006). For most people, it is sufficient that their emotions are recognized and acknowledged. On the practical level of everyday or “mundane” experience – where the communicative work of human life transpires – emotions matter in that they can be displayed, hidden, recognized, ascribed, contested, shared, responded to, or otherwise managed. What drives human emotional life are the ways in which emotions function as accountable phenomena that advance interactional goals and interpersonal relations while allowing members to make sense of their social worlds. Though “people may act in the world so as to make that world a part of themselves and a part of their emotionality” (Denzin 1984: 7), emotions are also resources for living in the world. From a socio-interactional perspective these sensemaking procedures are themselves objects for analysis, allowing us to investigate “the rich and systematic uses to which everyday psychological concepts are put” (Edwards 2005: 263). Unless otherwise stated, the contributors to this volume use the terms emotion and affect interchangeably. From CA’s ethnomethodological perspective, of primary importance for an understanding of emotion activity is how participants, themselves, show how they understand what it is they are talking about, feeling, and doing through their methods and activities. While social scientific terminology offers us as analysts helpful heuristic tools to describe and organize the interactional phenomena we investigate, we take a precarious interpretive leap when subscribing to a greater degree of granularity (Schegloff 2000) or specificity than participants do themselves.



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

3. Emotion in L2 and multilingualism research 3.1

Individual differences

In the interdisciplinary fields of multilingualism and L2 studies, affective phenomena have always been acknowledged as an important part of the multidimensional processes of language learning and use. The individual differences (ID) literature has perhaps most directly engaged with affect, often grouping it together with attitudinal-motivational variables as part of a larger ‘personality profile’ to explain successful and unsuccessful learning outcomes (e.g., Arnold 1999; Baker 1992; Dörnyei 2005, 2009; Ellis 2004; Gardner 1985; Horwitz 1986, 2001; Krashen 1988; Robinson 2002; Schumann 1978; Scovel 1978). This research has given us some important insights into how emotion-related constructs such as anxiety, reticence, motivation, and willingness to communicate influence L2 learning, teaching, and use. ID and motivation research rose to the forefront in the 1950s and 1960s during the psychosocial period of language research (Crookes and Schmidt 1991; Dörnyei 2005), in large part due to behavioral and educational psychologists such as Mowrer (1950) and later, Gardner and Lambert (Gardner 1985; Gardner, Lalonde, and Moorcroft 1985; Gardner and Lambert 1959, 1972). For these early researchers, of interest were the learner’s motivations, desires, and orientations (i.e., learning goals). Dissatisfied with aptitude and ability as explanations for differential learning outcomes, Gardner and colleagues sought to construct a causal model to explain how a learner’s own goals led to motivation, conceptualizing it as a process initiated and maintained by the individual. 3.2

Acculturation and affective filters

In the 1970s, second language acquisition models proposed by John Schumann and Steven Krashen made some of the most direct links between affective factors and second language learning and use. Schumann’s Acculturation Model (Schumann 1978, 1986) was developed from his research that investigated whether L2 learner language and pidginization were influenced by similar processes. Based on Schumann’s research on immigrant learners of English in non-­instructional settings (Cancinco, Rosansky, and Schumann 1974), this socio-­psychological model contended that the greater the degree to which a learner acculturates to and identifies with the L2 culture (i.e., in terms of social and psychological distance), the more successful the end state of language acquisition. Offering a causal and predictive explanation of ultimate second language attainment, at least for natural settings, this model had an intuitive appeal. However, Schmidt (1983),

5

6

Matthew T. Prior

in his landmark “Wes” paper, tested Schumann’s acculturation model through a longitudinal case study of a Japanese adult learner of English in Hawai‘i. Schmidt showed that despite Wes’ positive attitude, integrative motivation, relatively high socioeconomic status (as a successful artist), social opportunities for interaction with native speakers, and other socio-psychological factors that should, at least according to Schumann’s model, positively facilitate acquisition, his grammatical competence never developed on a par with his communicative and pragmatic competence. This led Schmidt to conclude that contrary to Schumann’s claims, positive affect does not automatically facilitate the development of grammatical competence; rather, effortful processing and analysis of input are also essential pieces of the learning puzzle. The central role of affect in SLA was also addressed by Krashen’s Monitor Model of L2 language learning (1976, 1981, 1985). According to a component of this model labeled the Affective Filter Hypothesis, low affect (or reduced anxiety) allows the adult L2 learner to receive comprehensible input, while high affect caused by stress or anxiety creates a mental and emotional ‘block’ that prevents input from being processed (1985: 100). Although Krashen’s model is attractive as a learning metaphor, it met with much criticism (e.g., Bley-Vroman 1989; Ellis 1985; Gregg 1984; Lightbown 1984) for its lack of explanatory power and failure to adequately operationalize ‘affect’ and other focal concepts. Despite the general criticisms in the field against the Affective Filter Hypothesis and the Acculturation Model, the ontology represented by both constructs – namely, that affective variables offer a causal explanation for learning success or failure – has gone relatively unquestioned by many L2 researchers. 3.3

Cognition and affect

In the 1980s and 1990s, the influence of the cognitive revolution in psychology and the increasing dissatisfaction with the overly restrictive treatment of affective variables led researchers to reexamine current thinking regarding motivation, attitude, anxiety, and other individual differences (Crookes and Schmidt 1991; Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope, 1986; Macintyre and Gardner 1989; Oxford and Shearin 1994), particularly in terms of the role of context or social influences beyond the individual mind. In their critique of traditional motivation theory and research, Crookes and Schmidt called for a new research agenda that would attempt to disentangle motivation from attitude, for example, and take on motivation as a broad taxonomy while investigating its various potential subtypes (e.g., intrinsic, extrinsic, instrumental). Dörnyei (2005) points out that this more recent period was characterized by the application of psychological work on cognition, and a narrowed focus on contexts of use, classroom settings in particular.



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

Also expanding the agenda were psychological (and causal) theories such as self-­ determination theory (Deci et al. 1994; Deci and Ryan 1985, 2000) and attribution theory (Weiner 1992), imported from cognitive psychology to help explain both the psychology and social-situatedness of L2 motivation (Noels 2001; Noels, Pelletier, Clément, and Vallerand 2003; Pae 2008; Ushioda 2001; see also Dörnyei 2003, 2005, 2009). Self-determination theory sees the degree to which behavior is volitional or self-chosen as regulating and sustaining the intrinsic motivation (enjoyment derived from the activity itself) necessary for educational success. Attribution theory explores the way that people perceive and explain past successes, failures, behavior, and degree of control, and how that affects how they experience emotional stability, positive motivational thinking, and future success or failure. Both theories take into account the role of affect and its influence on learners’ learning trajectories and identity formation. Despite the enormous body of work on individual differences and learner variables involved in L2 acquisition and use, “affective variables are the area that SLA researchers understand the least” (Scovel 2001: 140). Moreover, there is an increasing dissatisfaction by ID researchers themselves with the way in which cognitive and affective constructs are defined and studied. Dörnyei, one of the most prominent contemporary L2 scholars on individual variables and motivation (Dörnyei 2005, 2009; Dörnyei and Schmidt 2001; Dörnyei and Ushioda 2009), has since argued against the ID paradigm, even going so far as to call it a ‘myth’ (2009). It cannot hold up, according to Dörnyei, because ID research, based on its own definitions, assumes an impossible stability and generalizability of variables across people and contexts. Because current static models are unable to capture the complexity and multi-componential nature of the affective, cognitive, environmental, and other factors that are involved in multilingual development, Dörnyei (2009) has argued for a dynamic systems approach (see also de Bot, Lowie, and Verspoor 2007; Ellis 2007; Larsen-Freeman 2011) that takes into account the internal (e.g., motivation, emotions) as well as the external (e.g., social, environmental) aspects of language: “A truly dynamic systems approach will need to bridge this gap between the inner mental world of the individual and the surrounding social environment” (Dörnyei 2009: 50). 3.4

Affect and socialization

While cognitive researchers have examined affect largely as intra-psychological processes or an individual component of constructs such as motivation or anxiety, more socially grounded programs such as interlanguage pragmatics (IP) and language socialization (LS) view affect as a key learning and interactional object – as learned and communicative phenomena implicated in social participation

7

8

Matthew T. Prior

and identity development. Language socialization is concerned with “socialization through the use of language and socialization to use language” (Schieffelin and Ochs 1986: 163). In both first and second language socialization research, affect is considered “a central dimension to any theory of becoming” (Kulick and Schieffelin 2004: 352; also, Bamberg 2001; Garrett and Baquedano-­López 2002; Schieffelin and Ochs 1986). As novice members develop increased sociolinguistic and pragmatic competence in a language and participation in a culture, they learn to recognize and employ culturally sanctioned affective stances (i.e., emotional or attitudinal orientations) through indexicals (see Kasper and Rose 2002; Ochs 1996) – linguistic devices (e.g., discourse particles, prosody, gestures, word order) that index local values and understandings, and social relationships (Garrett and Baquedano-­ López 2002; Besnier 1990; Brice-Heath 1983; Clancy 1986, 1999; Kanagy 1999; Miller and Sperry 1987; Ochs 1986, 1988, 1996; Saarni and Crowley 1990; Schieffelin 1986, 1990; Schieffelin and Ochs 1986). L2 researchers have also shown that child and adult L2 learners’ socialization processes often parallel those found in L1 socialization. A number of empirical studies have looked at linguistic resources, such as affective and epistemic stance markers and displays, and how novices and experts use them in different ways. L2 socialization studies of Japanese learners, for example, have brought attention to these various affect-mediated processes. Cook (2006, 2008) showed how L2 learners of Japanese are socialized into the second language and cultural norms through interactional particles, speech style, and dinnertime talk. Focusing on sentence final particles in Japanese, Ohta (1994, 1999, 2001) demonstrated that L2 learners of Japanese are socialized into classroom interactional routines through the sentence final ne-particle (indexing shared empathy, affect, or perspective) as they learn to make use of it to display alignment with the teacher and their fellow learners. However, the socialization into the use of affective resources is not always a given; learners may either fail or resist making use of these indexicals. Yoshimi (1999), in a discourse-based study of the use of the final ne-particle by five L2 learners of Japanese, found that while learners were judged by native-speakers to use the particle appropriately to indicate shared information and cooperation, non-target-like uses were found to be influenced by L1 (English) pragmatic transfer of epistemic stance norms. Negative affect has been demonstrated by researchers who highlight the non-linear aspects of language socialization. Talmy (2008), in a critical ethnographic study of high school students in Hawai‘i, found that ESL students used varied resources such as intensifiers (e.g., ‘so’), prosody, overlapping talk, and lack of hedging to take up “affective and epistemic stances” (629) to actively challenge and resist being categorized as typical ESL students by asserting their own oppositional discourses (i.e., ‘Local’ ESL vs. ESL student).



3.5

Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

Contemporary approaches to emotion

Apart from exceptional precursors (e.g., Arnold 1999; Rintell 1984, 1990; Schumann 1997), only recently has emotion begun to be treated as a topic of inquiry in its own right in L2 and multilingualism research (e.g., Dewaele 2005, 2006, 2010; Dewaele and Pavlenko 2002; Gabrys-Barker and Bielska 2013; Koven 2004; Pavlenko 2005, 2006). This renewed interest in emotion has led to the growth of several distinct lines of scholarship from perspectives such as cognitive processing and the emotional lexicon (Dewaele 2011; Pavlenko 2005, 2008a, 2008b), motivation (Murray, Gao, and Lamb 2011), sociocultural approaches (Swain, Kinnear, and Steinman 2011), narrative and autobiographical research (Baynham and De Fina 2005; Barkhuizen 2011; Barkhuizen, Benson, and Chik 2014; Benson and Nunan 2004; Golombek and Johnson 2004; Pavlenko 2007; Prior 2016; Vitanova 2004), language and desire (Motha and Lin 2013; Takahashi 2013), critical pedagogy (Benesch 2011; Crookes 2013), L2 writing (Chamcharatsri 2013; Hanauer 2010), and teacher cognition and professional development (Akbari 2006; Borg 2006; Woods 1996). As the recent surge of scholarly attention indicates, emotion is proving to be an exciting and prolific area of study. But the perspectives on emotion, even within a discipline such as applied linguistics, are proving to be just as diverse as those outside, leaving researchers with an even more fragmented and uncertain understanding of what they and their colleagues mean when they refer to the topic and to the study of emotion and other affective phenomena. In this volume, we step outside the debates surrounding the definitions, origins, and manifestations of emotions. Instead, we engage with emotions and related ‘psychological’ topics at the same level as ordinary speakers do: as publicly available and accountable interactional resources, facts, and phenomena. This, of course, is not to claim that emotions are only interactional and not “organismic” (Hochschild 2012) or implicated in biological responses and drives. For our purposes, whatever else emotions may be, they are discursive constructions that are made visible and relevant in talk: Their significance is in how they are conceived, how they may be defined, and especially in how various emotion categories contrast with alterative emotions, with non-emotional states, with rational conduct, and so on, within the discursive construction of reality and mind.  (Edwards 1997: 170, italics in original)

The following section extends this perspective by laying out the theoretical and methodological framework grounding this project.

9

10

Matthew T. Prior

4. A discursive and interactional approach to emotion Many of the contributors to this volume use CA as they take up psychological phenomena as discursive, multisemiotic productions: as something people do as participants in social activities rather than as something they have as internal, situation-­independent personality traits, or as something they are temporarily, such as “being in” a transient ‘state’ in response to specific external events. Owing to its powerful analytical tools and proof procedures, CA has established its ability to engage with local understandings and relevance in situ (rather than based on a priori assumptions about e.g., macro-level influences) and its methodological rigor to elucidate the organizational structure, orderliness, and moment-by-moment actions in interaction. Thus, CA’s action orientation to human activity allows a means to examine how participants accomplish fundamental and recurrent aspects of their social lives in and through “talk-and-other-conduct-in-interaction” (Schegloff, Ochs, and Thompson 1996: 22). Over the past few decades, discursive psychology has extended CA’s program by explicitly taking up traditional psychological concerns – typically peripheral to CA’s interests (but see Couper-Kuhlen 2009; Hepburn and Wiggins 2007; Peräkylä and Sorjonen 2012; te Molder and Potter 2005, for contemporary perspectives) – such as emotion, cognition, memory, perception, motivation, intention, attribution, attitudes, and social representations (Edwards 1997; Edwards and Potter 1992, 2005; Hepburn and Wiggins 2007; Potter 2003, 2012; te Molder and Potter 2005). Describing their challenge of traditional cognitive approaches, Potter and Hepburn (2007: 160–161) state, “DP is a perspective that starts with the psychological phenomena as things that are constructed, attended to, and understood in interaction” and it “looks for psychology in a completely different place.” Such an approach takes the psychological out of the head and away from the exclusive domain of psychologists and cognitive scientists and returns it to its place in the everyday lives of social members, radically relocating the focus of attention from the internal to the external and from the individual to a relational self. By viewing emotions as socially accountable phenomena, an interactional approach addresses the matter of how psychological terms may be defined in that it examines how social members themselves (rather than researchers) conceptualize and make use of emotions and affective stances in their joint activities and discursive productions (Buttny 1993; Edwards 1997, 1999). Explicitly labeling one’s own emotional state (e.g., ‘I’m mad’; ‘I’m shocked’) or ascribing a particular state to someone else (e.g., ‘You look upset’; ‘You’re certainly in a good mood!’) have been shown to be interactionally consequential and an important part of participants’ ongoing identity work. Therefore, emotion, as a fundamentally social resource, both enables and requires particular courses of action:



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

The uses of affect can make accountability relevant to the situated context and project a certain range of responses from interlocutors. The avowal of an emotion such as anger, for instance, is a way to frame events as out of the ordinary and problematic, and thereby to implicate another’s responsibility for provoking the speaker’s emotional reaction.  (Buttny 1993: 86)

Of course, emotion need not be lexically labeled to convey a speaker’s affective stance. Response particles such as oh (Heritage 1984); response cries (Goffman 1978) such as oops!, eek!, and ouch!; and related reaction tokens such as wow or gosh (Wilkinson and Kitzinger 2006) are also highly flexible resources speakers employ to communicate psychological change or to embody a visceral reaction to events. In English, oh, is a frequently used token signaling a change in the speaker’s “locally current state of knowledge, information, orientation, or awareness” (Heritage 1984: 299). Although it has primarily been analyzed in the literature as an epistemic marker, oh can also display a speaker’s affective stance and influence the interactional trajectory. For example, Couper-Kuhlen (2009), in an analysis of ‘disappointment’ sequences, shows how prosodic cues (e.g., pitch, loudness, sound stretching) combined with oh enable speakers to “do disappointment” in interaction. In a study on the response particles oh and ach in German, Golato (2012) compared them to the use of the English oh token. She found that though the German oh and ach both indicate a change of state (similar in function to the English oh), ach primarily conveys cognitive or epistemic shifts. Based on her data, Golato concludes, …an oh-prefaced turn communicates an emotional stance of the speaker, such as joy, pleasure, physical pain, unhappiness, disgust, etc. I argue that in German, oh serves as a vehicle for embodying and expressing the emotion felt by the speaker. This emotion is not reported on, but instead is portrayed as being experienced at the moment when the oh is uttered.  (Golato 2012)

As Couper-Kuhlen (2009), Golato (2012), and others have repeatedly demonstrated, CA enables an analysis of emotion that makes visible participants’ concerns as well as their interactional and procedural competences (Kasper and Wagner 2011), which include, for example, sequence organization, turn-construction, repair, formulation, and categorization. The contribution of CA and related modes of inquiry to the study of emotion representation and management across various settings has just begun to be realized.

11

12

Matthew T. Prior

4.1

Nonverbal and embodied emotion displays

As indicated above, not all work on emotion and its interactional management has been confined to emotion vocabulary and rhetoric. Although emotion can be said to always be present in interaction, topicalizing it as the object of talk and describing or ascribing particular emotions are potentially delicate actions (see Ruusuvuori 2013). Because emotions are accountable phenomena, when people talk about specific emotions, they run the risk of coming across as overly sensitive, judgmental, morally accountable, and so on. Furthermore, by labeling particular emotions, those descriptions are then open to being questioned, challenged, or rejected by others. Thus emotion talk often necessitates situated interpersonal work to justify or otherwise account for the consequences of particular emotions being discussed (or avoided). Nonverbal and embodied emotion displays are no less powerful means to communicate emotionality. Because they do not explicitly claim a particular emotion label, they are potentially less intrusive in conversation and may even better facilitate the progressivity of the interaction. Ruusuvuori (2013) notes that when emotion is explicitly expressed at the interactional surface, it is primarily done non-lexically. Adding to the larger picture of the communication and management of emotion, a burgeoning number of studies on embodied emotion displays and responses have illuminated how laughter and smiling (Glenn 2003; Haakana 2001, 2010; Jefferson 1979; Potter, and Hepburn 2010), crying (Hepburn and Potter 2013), pleasure (e.g., Wiggins 2002), surprise (Wilkinson and Kitzinger 2006), hysteria (Whalen and Zimmerman 1998), and other affective displays (see also Couper-Kuhlen 2009) are used to convey individuals’ affective stances toward people and events and emotive involvement with their interlocutors (for concise overviews and examples, see Besnier 1990; Du Bois and Kärkkäinen 2012; Lutz and Abu-Lughod 1990; Ochs and Schieffelin 1989; Peräkylä and Sorjonen 2012; Ruusuvuori 2013; Stivers 2008). Empirical research on the nonverbal communication of emotion has reinforced our awareness that attending only to the linguistic aspects of emotive communication leaves us with a severely restricted perspective of the rich semiotic resources available to participants of all sociolinguistic backgrounds and competencies and the highly-coordinated interactional work they carry out across casual as well as institutional settings. 4.2

Studies of emotion in institutional settings

Within discursive studies of emotion, much attention has been given to the role of emotion rhetoric and emotion management in institutional contexts such as



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

healthcare settings. Examining interactions involving healthcare workers, patients, and medical support teams, these applied studies (see Antaki 2011; Hepburn and Wiggins 2007; Willig 1999) have been instrumental in elucidating the ways in which medical professionals and patients conduct their institutional business by using emotional and psychological frames of understanding. In clinical interaction, patients talk about, and vocally and nonverbally embody, specific affective frames (e.g., discomfort, pain, suffering) to legitimize the validity of their complaints and the reasons for their medical visit (Heath and Luff 2013; Heritage and Maynard 2006). Contrary to professional claims of neutrality and rationality within medical settings, emotions have been shown to be an integral part of decision-­ making practices and procedures (Nikander 2007; see also Heritage and Maynard 2006; Potter and Hepburn 2003; Ruusuvuori 2007). An activity in which the display and management of emotion (e.g., empathy) become particularly salient is diagnostic news delivery (Heritage and Lindström 2012; Maynard 2003; Maynard and Frankel 2006). Investigating asymmetries in good news and bad news delivery, Maynard and Frankel (2006) show that when presenting bad news, doctors frequently delay the delivery by prefacing it with hesitations, neutral or even positive evaluations, and talk inviting a perspective-­ display inquiry (e.g., “Do you remember what we talked about at the end o’ the procedure?”; 261). By shrouding bad news in this manner, doctors represent their own restraint and may even encourage patients to control their own emotional flooding responses to bad news (271). Psychotherapy and counseling are also data-rich environments for examining emotion rhetoric and emotion management (Antaki, Barnes, and Leudar 2007; Pawelczyk 2011; Peräkylä, Antaki, Vehviläinen, and Leudar 2008; Peräkylä and Sorjonen 2012). In psychotherapeutic interaction, emotions are explicit institutional objects, and patients’ mental and emotional transformation and well-being are the primary institutional goals. Discursive studies in this area have contributed to a richer understanding of the general phases of counseling sessions and have provided crucial insights into how particular psychotherapeutic models and treatments are put into practice. The activity of therapist (re)formulation – that is, the paraphrasing and revising of patient utterances directed toward therapeutic ends (Antaki 2008; Bercelli, Rossano, and Viaro 2008; Rae 2008) – has been shown to be a key procedural resource therapists use to topicalize and analyze their clients’ emotional states. A related institutional site where CA has advanced the investigation of emotion management and psychological work is in telephone helpline and emergency call lines (Shaw and Kitzinger 2013; Whalen, J. and Zimmerman 1998; Whalen, M. and Zimmerman 1987, 1990). In a study of 911 calls, Whalen, J. and Zimmerman (1998) investigated how hysteria operated as a procedural matter,

13

14

Matthew T. Prior

rather than just an internal or psychological problem. On the one hand, callers’ affective displays serve to substantiate the seriousness of the call (in the same way that patients’ affective displays in medical settings provide a warrant for seeking medical treatment); on the other hand, emotional outbursts or flooding run the risk of impeding “the effective collection of essential information and the dispatch of appropriately informed emergency units” (143). Showing how emotion has a direct bearing on institutional procedures, Whalen and Zimmerman found that call takers assessed and coded callers as ‘hysterical’ when their affective displays (e.g., crying, expression of sorrow) negatively impacted the communicative exchange. To facilitate the gathering of essential information and to keep callers on task, the call takers actively managed their own and the callers’ emotion by doing such things as remaining calm, using directives (e.g., ‘Calm down’), and reassuring the caller (‘Help is on the way’). As the preceding has discussed, by opening up taken-for-granted or opaque institutional procedures for inspection and improvement, discursive studies of emotion in institutional settings reinforce our recognition of the applied benefits of studying emotions as socially accountable phenomena. 4.3

Stories and accounts

Perhaps one of the most widespread activities where emotion work is regularly accomplished is in the production and reception of stories and accounts (e.g., Locke and Edwards 2003; Mandelbaum 2013; Ruusuvuori 2013; Sidnell 2010; Stivers 2008, 2013; Wong and Waring 2010). Interactional storytelling is a key mode of communicating emotion and managing its moral implications and accountability. One would be hard-pressed to find any narrative or storytelling study that does not at least comment on some aspect of the emotional content or production. Research on the intersection of emotion and storytelling has been especially advanced by studies on troubles tellings (Edwards 1995; Jefferson 1984, 1988; Jefferson, Drew, Heritage, Lerner, and Pomerantz 2015; Pudlinski 2005), complaint stories about a third party (Drew 1998; Günthner 1997; Kasper and Prior 2015; Prior 2011), and conflict talk (Buttny 2004; Stokoe and Edwards 2009; Stokoe and Hepburn 2005). Interaction-based studies of storytelling have demonstrated that emotion is communicated through the ways that tellers launch a story, tell it, and bring it to a close, as well as through the ways in which story recipients respond to the tellers and their stories (Prior 2016). Work on affective stance in storytelling by Stivers (2008: 32; also Kasper and Prior 2015; Mandelbaum 2013), for example, makes a case for distinguishing between affiliation (recipient responses “that endorse the teller’s perspective” or stance), and alignment (actions which “support the progress of the telling”).



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

Building on Sacks’ (1974) and Jefferson’s (1978) observations on the sequential organization and recipient uptake of stories, Stivers suggests that there is a preference in storytelling for recipients to affiliate with the teller’s stance toward the reported events. In her corpus she found recipients collaboratively aligned with the activity of storytelling, and they affiliated with the teller through vocal continuers (e.g., ‘mm hm’) that supported the progress of the story as well as head nods produced at particular junctures to indicate their understanding of the events and endorsement of the teller’s perspective. Thus, as the research evinces, emotion is more than the experiential outcome of past episodes or the result of feelings evoked by the telling – it is a fundamental resource for communicating the interpretive or affective frame of the teller’s perspective as well as the calibrated responses (e.g., empathy, affiliation) of story recipients. This section has reviewed some of the disciplinary diversity across the L1 and L2 literature on emotion while highlighting the intrinsic theoretical and methodological challenges. Though an abbreviated sketch, it laid out how an interactional approach to emotion has contributed to – and indeed, can further contribute to – this swiftly growing area of inquiry. I will now say a few words about the specific relevance of this volume, and this approach, for L2 and multilingual research. 5. ‘Multilingual’ research and contexts By extending the study of emotion to encompass a wider range of speakers and contexts, this volume seeks to develop a more nuanced understanding of the concept multilingual (used here to encompass bilingual). Typically, ‘multilingual’ is used to refer to “the command and/or use of two or more languages by the respective speaker” (Herdina and Jessner 2002: 52). Though the term is inextricably tied to the use of multiple languages, scholars in L2 and multilingualism studies have overwhelmingly demonstrated that ‘multilingual’ (and multilingualism, multilinguality) involves a number of issues, including language choice, language attitudes, power relations, language ideologies, identity work, cognitive processes, and motivational and affective regulatory mechanisms (Dörnyei 2009; Pavlenko 2005; Pavlenko and Blackledge 2004; So and Dominguez 2004). As Aronin and Singleton (2012: 81) point out, “multilinguality is brought into being by an interplay of social and personal factors and…displays itself through the entire range of the physical, cognitive, cultural, and social qualities and characteristics of an individual.” This perspective resonates with the shift away from theorizing the decontextualized learner to appreciating the various competencies and agentive work of the socially embedded multilingual language user and social actor.

15

16

Matthew T. Prior

This volume is written for scholars interested in emotion, social interaction, and the multisemiotic resources and communicative potential of human activity. All the studies in this collection concern themselves with multilingual persons and the ways in which they conjointly communicate and manage emotion, within and in response to their various real-life contexts. This includes special attention to multiple languages and language varieties, multilingual speakers, multilingualism as an object of social commentary, multilingualism as an interactional resource, multilingualism and L2 language development as institutional and personal goals, and multilingualism as a research topic. The contributors’ methodological and analytical procedures and perspectives were consequently shaped by the nature of the volume theme as well as their individual research questions, data, and contexts. Though representing diverse projects, these chapters nonetheless present a cohesive investigation of emotion as socially accountable action in multilingual settings. Moreover, this advances an interactional approach that grounds its analysis in the concerns and orientations of participants. We therefore invite the reader to join in co-analyzing the texts and examining how emotion functions as both a topic and resource for participants as well as researchers. 6. This volume Chapters 2–4 are concerned with the generic methods and resources that participants sequentially deploy to perform and share an array of affective stances in conversational interaction. In Chapter 2, Gavin Lamb examines laughter displays and emotive involvement in a conversational storytelling sequence between an American L1 English speaker and an L2 English/L1 Japanese speaker. Using multimodal conversation analysis, Lamb shows how the two participants incrementally project and build shared emotive involvement through a ‘crescendo’ leading up to a story climax. Despite these speakers’ differential knowledge and socio-linguistic resources, they collaboratively make use of laughter, facial expressions, depictive and spatial gestures (e.g., drawing a ‘map’), and environmental objects (e.g., a table) to successfully achieve mutual understanding and a shared emotional ground. Offering a much-needed contribution to the study of fear as an affective stance, in Chapter 3 Alfred Rue Burch and Gabriele Kasper draw on Goodwin’s (2013) work on lamination and substrates to analyze a disaster story telling between an L2 Japanese speaker and her L1 Japanese recipient. Giving close attention to participants’ multisemiotic resources, vocal and nonvocal, the authors explicate how the story gets assembled and understood as kowai or ‘scary’ and how both storyteller and recipient achieve matching affective stances. In Chapter 4, Evelyne Berger and Virginie Fasel Lauzon turn their attention to



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

emotion displays and affiliation in dyadic conversations between an au pair (L1 German, L2 French) and members of her host family (L1 French) in Switzerland. The authors show that the ability to effectively communicate emotions and orient to the family members’ affective stances facilitates emotional solidarity. They further demonstrate that affective participation serves as a powerful resource enabling the au pair to establish a close relationship and ‘insider’ status with members of the host family. Affective stance in education-related settings is the subject of the following three chapters. In Chapter 5, Tim Greer explores variations of the affective response token ogh, produced by Japanese university students in their EFL (English as a Foreign Language) oral proficiency test. Greer demonstrates how this token (and its variants) functions as a kind of public awe-receipt or response cry used to express amazement to others and progress the interaction. For these novice L2 English speakers, ogh is a convenient device that allows them immediate participation without the need for grammatical processing. As the author suggests, the reactive display of emotion performed in the L1, in an L2 context, allows speakers to retain some of their linguistic and cultural identities as they progress toward a multilingual mode of communication. In Chapter 6, Asta Cekaite contributes to an understanding of the long-term development of linguistic and interactional competence in a study of a young Somali L2 Swedish learner. Using a framework combining CA, ethnography, language socialization, and multimodal analysis, the author examines how this child learns methods for combining talk and embodied cues to display, interpret, and resist affective stances in her second language. The affectively-charged sociopolitical context of English medium and Hindi medium education in India is the topic of Chapter 7, by Priti Sandhu. Using both CA and membership categorization analysis, the author examines how Indian women flexibly construct their affective stances toward these two types of education. This study casts light on the ways in which these women, in collaboration with the interviewer, make use of macro-level ideologies (e.g., gender, education, multilingualism, prejudice) and subjectivities at the interactional level to both construct and challenge negative identity categories. Chapters 8 and 9 consider emotion formulations and reformulations, utterances that consist of summaries, restatements, or alternative descriptions of previous talk. In Chapter 8, Federico Farini focuses attention on the emotional work involving international migrants in Italian healthcare settings. His study investigates the dynamic interactions among Italian healthcare providers, Arabic- or Chinese-­speaking patients, and interpreters. Farini shows how interpreters actively mediate the communication of language and emotion between patients and their healthcare providers. Through reformulating utterances from one language to another, the interpreter may alternatively cut out a patient’s emotions from

17

18

Matthew T. Prior

the interaction or foreground them, thereby greatly influencing the degree of affiliation and emotive involvement between doctor and patient. This study highlights the important role of affectivity in facilitating healthcare interaction and successful treatment of patients. Matthew T. Prior, in Chapter 9, examines how the selection and scaling of particular formulations may be similarly used to carry out emotional and “psychological” work in the L2 research interview context. In an analysis of an extended, affect-laden story telling segment where an adult immigrant describes bullying in the multicultural workplace, Prior shows how the speaker characterizes and scales conflict and even extreme threats of physical violence in relation to identity categories such as ethnicity, gender, and length of residence. By intensifying and de-intensifying the emotionality of reported events, the speaker carefully manages the truthfulness and moral adequacy of his actions and claims, even when challenged by the interviewer. The following two chapters explore emotion as a part of public performance. In Chapter 10, Gavin Furukawa employs CA and membership categorization analysis to examine a late-night Japanese TV talk show involving L1 Japanese hosts and panel participants made up of L2 Japanese-speaking gaikokujin (‘foreigners’) living in Japan. Analysis focuses on the ways in which emotions (e.g., embarrassment, anger) are made relevant in the questions and responses collaboratively produced by the hosts, the gaikokujin participants, the studio audience, anonymous question-providers, and on-screen textual summaries. The author shows how this participation framework involves complex vocal and nonvocal work that enables participants to make visible pervasive social stereotypes about foreigners while subjecting those stereotypes to parody, laughter, and even anger. In Chapter 11, Toshiaki Furukawa, examines stand-up comedy performances in Hawai‘i, a context where a speaker’s use of a particular language variety is a topic of humorous social commentary as well as a device for social critique. Drawing on CA and stylization, the author investigates how comedians use Hawai‘i Creole (Pidgin) to voice Locals and English to voice non-Locals or ‘White people’. This study finds these comedians use Hawai‘i Creole to index ‘positive’ emotions and affect in relation to Locals, while “mock English” (i.e., parodied ‘White’ English) conveys ‘negative’ emotions and attitudes. Consequently, this chapter highlights the cultural specificity of humor and affect in Local stand-up comedy that constitutes and is constituted by a shared sense of in-group knowledge about multivocal humor. Rounding out the empirical studies in this volume, in Chapter 12 Marta González-­Lloret advances CMC (computer-mediated communication) as an exciting area for emotion representation and inquiry. Examining synchronous online interactions between L1 speakers of Spanish and L2 intermediate learners of Spanish in an online course, the author uses CA and stylization to examine how participants creatively use their text-based language resources (e.g., punctuation,



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

unconventional spelling, capitalization) in tandem with codeswitching to construct and display a variety of emotional states (e.g., happiness, anger, sadness) that are understood and shared by all. Like other contributions, this chapter further demonstrates the creative ways in which L2 learners show themselves as competent users of the language, capable of communicating and managing emotion despite the constraints of language or the medium of engagement. This volume contributes to the field of conversation analysis and cognate perspectives, and it opens up a new trajectory for the pragmatic study of emotion in L2 and multilingualism scholarship. Though a definitive treatment of these issues is impossible, we hope that the spectrum of studies represented here compellingly illustrates just how central and dynamic emotion is across human social life, regardless of context, language, or speaker. These studies also offer tools and methods for addressing some of the challenges in analysis and representation while demonstrating the insights afforded through the detailed study of emotion in interaction. It is our desire that these studies will inspire more researchers to take up the interaction-based study of emotion and apply it to an even wider range of multisemiotic resources and linguistic, cultural, conversational, institutional, and other contexts than are currently represented in the literature.

References Akbari, Ramin. 2006. “Reflections on Reflection: A Critical Appraisal of Reflective Practices in L2 Teacher Education.” System 35: 192–207. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.12.008 Antaki, Charles (ed.). 2011. Applied Conversation Analysis: Intervention and Change in Institutional Talk. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230316874 Antaki, Charles, Rebecca Barnes, and Ivan Leudar. 2007. “Members’ and Analysts’ Interests: ‘Formulations’ in Psychotherapy.” In Discursive Research in Practice, ed. by Alexa Hepburn, and Sally Wiggins, 166–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511611216.009

Arnold, Jane (ed.). 1999. Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aronin, Larissa, and David Singleton. 2012. Multilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Auer, Peter (ed.). 2007. Style and Social Identities: Alternative Approaches to Linguistic Heterogeneity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Baider, Fabienne, and Georgeta Cislaru. 2014. Linguistic Approaches to Emotions in Context. Amsterdam. John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.241 Baker, Colin. 1992. Attitudes and Language. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bamberg, Michael. 2001. “Critical Personalism, Language, and Development.” Theory & Psychology 10 (6): 749–767. Barkhuizen, Gary (ed.). 2011. “Narrative Knowledging in TESOL [Special Section].” TESOL Quarterly 45: 391–414. doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.261888 Barkhuizen, Gary, Phil Benson, and Alice Chik. 2014. Narrative Inquiry in Language Teaching and Research. London: Routledge.

19

20 Matthew T. Prior

Baynham, Mike, and Anna De Fina (eds.). 2005. Dislocations/Relocations: Narratives of Displacement. Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing. Benesch, Sarah. 2011. Considering Emotions in Critical English Language Teaching: Theories and Praxis. London: Routledge. Benson, Phil, and David Nunan (eds.). 2004. Learners’ Stories: Difference and Diversity in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ben-Ze’ev, Aaron. 2000. The Subtlety of Emotions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bercelli, Fabrizio, Federico Rossano, and Maurizio Viaro. 2008. “Clients’ Responses to Therapists’ Re-Interpretations.” In Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, Charles Antaki, Sanna Vehviläinen, and Ivan Leudar, 43–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Besnier, Nico. 1990. “Language and Affect.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 419–451.  doi:  10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002223

Bley-Vroman, Robert. 1989. “What is the Logical Problem of Foreign Language Learning?” In Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Susan M. Gass, and Jacquelyn Schachter, 41–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bond, Alyson J., and Janet Wingrove. 2010. “The Neurochemistry and Psychopharmacology of Anger.” In International Handbook of Anger: Constituent and Concomitant Biological, Psychological and Social Processes, ed. by Michael Potegal, Gerhard Stemmler, and Charles Spielberger, 79–102. London: Springer. Borg, Simon. 2006. Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. London: Continuum. Brice-Heath, Shirley. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Buttny, Richard. 1993. Social Accountability in Communication. London: SAGE. Buttny, Richard. 2004. Talking Problems: Studies of Discursive Construction. Albany: SUNY Press. Button, Graham (ed.). 1991. Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611827 Cancinco, Herlinda, Ellen Rosansky, and John Schumann. 1974. “Testing Hypotheses about Second Language Acquisition: The Copula and Negative in Three Subjects.” Working Papers in Bilingualism 6: 80–96. Chamcharatsri, Pisarn. B. 2013. “Emotionality and Second Language Writers: Expressing Fear Through Narrative in Thai and in English.” L2 Journal 51: 59–75. Clancy, Patricia M. 1986. “The Acquisition of Communicative Style in Japanese.” In Language Socialization across Cultures, ed. by Bambi Schieffelin, and Elinor Ochs, 213–250. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clancy, Patricia M. 1999. “The Socialization of Affect in Japanese Mother-Child Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1397–1421. Clough, Patricia T., and Jean O. Halley (eds.). 2007. The Affective Turn: Theorizing the Social. Durham: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822389606 Coan, James A., and John J. B. Allen. 2007. Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and Assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cook, Haruko Minegishi 2008. Socializing Identities through Speech Style: Learners of Japanese as a Foreign Language. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth. 2009. “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of ‘Disappointment’.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS).



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

Crookes, Graham. 2013. Critical ELT in Action: Foundations, Promises, Praxis. London: Routledge. Damasio, Antonio R. 1994. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: Putnam. Darwin, Charles, and Paul Ekman. 1998. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. de Bot, Kees, Wander Lowie, and Marjolijn Verspoor. 2007. “A Dynamic Systems Theory Approach to Second Language Acquisition.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1): 7–21. Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum. De Fina, Anna, and Alexandra Georgakopoulou. 2012. Analyzing Narrative: Discourse and Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Denzin, Norman K. 1984. On Understanding Emotion. London: Transaction Publishers. Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2005. “Investigating the Psychological and Emotional Dimensions in Instructed Language Learning: Obstacles and Possibilities.” Modern Language Journal 89 (3): 367–380. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00311.x Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2006. “Expressing Anger in Multiple Languages.” In Bilingual Minds: Emotional Experience, Expression, and Representation, ed. by Aneta Pavlenko, 118–151. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dewaele, Jean-Marc. 2010. Emotions in Multiple Languages. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230289505 Dewaele, Jean-Marc, and Aneta Pavlenko. 2002. “Emotion Vocabulary in Interlanguage.” Language Learning 52: 265–324. doi: 10.1111/0023-8333.00185 Dörnyei, Zoltán (ed.) 2003. Attitudes, Orientations, and Motivations in Language Learning: Advances in Theory, Research, and Applications. Oxford: Blackwell. Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2005. The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge. Dörnyei, Zoltan. 2009. The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dörnyei, Zoltàn, and Richard W. Schmidt, Richard (eds.) 2001. Motivation and Second Language Acquisition. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. Dörnyei, Zoltan, and Ema Ushioda. 2009. Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Drew, Paul. 1998. “Complaints about Transgressions and Misconduct.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 31 (3–4): 295–325. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 2006. Conversation Analysis (Vol. 1–4). London: SAGE.  doi:  10.4135/9781446261156

Du Bois, John W., and Elise Kärkkäinen. 2012. “Taking a Stance on Emotion: Affect, Sequence, and Intersubjectivity in Dialogic Interaction.” Text & Talk 32 (4): 433–451. Edwards, Derek. 1995. “Two to Tango: Script Formulations, Dispositions, and Rhetorical Symmetry in Relationship Troubles Talk.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 (4): 319–350. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2804_1 Edwards, Derek. 1997. Discourse and Cognition. London: SAGE. Edwards, Derek. 1999. “Emotion Discourse.” Culture and Psychology 5 (3): 271–291.  doi:  10.1177/1354067X9953001

Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter. 1992. Discursive Psychology. London: SAGE.

21

22

Matthew T. Prior

Edwards, Derek, and Jonathan Potter. 2005. “Discursive Psychology, Mental States and Descriptions.” In Conversation and Cognition, ed. by Hedwig te Molder, and Jonathan Potter, 241–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ekman, Paul, and Richard J. Davidson (eds.). 1994. The Nature of Emotion: Fundamental Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Nick C. 2007. “The Dynamic Systems and SLA: The Wood and the Trees.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1): 23–25. Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, Rod. 2004. “Individual Differences in Second Language Learning.” In The Handbook of Applied Linguistics, ed. by Alan Davies, and Catherine Elder, 525–551. Oxford: Wiley-­ Blackwell. Fehr, Beverley, and James A. Russell. 1984. “Concept of Emotion Viewed from a Prototype Perspective.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113: 464–486.  doi:  10.1037/0096-3445.113.3.464

Gabrys-Barker, Danuta, and Joanna Bielska (eds.). 2013. The Affective Dimension in Second Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gardner, Robert C. 1985. Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, Robert C., Richard N. Lalonde, and Regina Moorcroft. 1985. “The Role of Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning: Correlational and Experimental Considerations.” Language Learning: A Journal of Applied Linguistics 35 (2): 207–227. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Garrett, Paul B., and Patricia Baquedano-López. 2002. “Language Socialization: Reproduction and Continuity, Transformation and Change.” Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 339–361. Glenn, Phillip. 2003. Laughter in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511519888

Goffman, Erving. 1978. “Response Cries.” Language 54 (4): 787–815. doi: 10.2307/413235 Golato, Andrea. 2012. “German Oh: Marking an Emotional Change of State.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (3): 245–268. Golombek, Paula R., and Karen E. Johnson. 2004. “Narrative Inquiry as a Mediational Space: Examining Emotional and Cognitive Dissonance in Second Language Teachers’ Development.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 10: 307–327.  doi:  10.1080/1354060042000204388

Goodwin, Charles. 2007. “Participation, Stance and Affect in the Organization of Activities.” Discourse & Society 18 (1): 53–73. doi: 10.1177/0957926507069457 Gregg, Kevin R. 1984. “Krashen’s Monitor and Occam’s Razor.” Applied Linguistics 5 (2): 79–100. Günthner, Susanne. 1997. “The Contextualization of Affect in Reported Dialogues.” In The Language of Emotions: Conceptualization, Expression, and Theoretical Foundation, ed. by Susanne Niemeier, and René Dirven, 247–277. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  doi:  10.1075/z.85.19gun

Haakana, Markku. 2001. “Laughter as a Patient’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text 21 (1/2): 187–219. Haakana, Markku. 2010. “Language and Smiling: Notes on Co-occurrences.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (6): 1499–1512. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.010 Hanauer, David. I. 2010. Poetry as Research: Exploring Second Language Poetry Writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lal.9



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 2013. “Embodied Action and Organizational Activity.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 283–307. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Hepburn, Alexa, and Jonathan Potter. 2013. “Crying and Crying Responses.” In Emotion and Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 195–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hepburn, Alexa, and Sally Wiggins. 2007. “Discursive Research: Themes and Debates.” In Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction, ed. by Alexa Hepburn, and Sally Wiggins, 1–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511611216.001

Herdina, Philip, and Ulrike Jessner. 2002. A Dynamic Model of Multilingualism: Perspectives of Change in Psycholinguistics. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, John, and Anna Lindström. 2012. “Knowledge, Empathy, and Emotion in a Medical Encounter.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 256–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0012 Heritage, John, and Douglas W. Maynard (eds.). 2006. Communication in Medical Care: Interactions between Primary Care Physicians and Patients. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511607172 Horwitz, Elaine K. 2001. “Language Anxiety and achievement.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 21: 112–126. doi: 10.1017/S0267190501000071 Horwitz, Elaine K., Michael B. Horwitz, and Joann Cope. 1986. “Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety.” The Modern Language Journal 70: 125–132.  doi:  10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05256.x

Hochschild, Arlie R. 2012. The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling (3rd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Hutchby, Ian, and Robin Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation Analysis (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity. James, William. 1884. “What is an Emotion?” Mind 19 (34): 188–205.  doi:  10.1093/mind/os-IX.34.188

Jefferson, Gail. 1978. “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling.” In Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 219–248. London: Academic Press. Jefferson, Gail. 1979. “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and Its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 79–96. New York: Irvington. Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 346–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jefferson, Gail. 1988. “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems 35 (4): 418–441. doi: 10.2307/800595 Jefferson, Gail, Paul Drew, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, and Anita Pomerantz (eds.). 2015. Talking about Troubles in Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kagan, Jerome. 2007. What is Emotion?: History, Measures, and Meanings. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kanagy, Ruth. 1999. “Interactional Routines as a Mechanism for L2 Acquisition and Socialization in an Immersion Context.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (11): 1467–1492. Kalat, James W., and Michelle N. Shiota. 2007. Emotion. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

23

24

Matthew T. Prior

Kasper, Gabriele, and Matthew T. Prior. 2015. “Analyzing Storytelling in TESOL Interview Research.” TESOL Quarterly 49 (2): 226–255. doi: 10.1002/tesq.169 Kasper, Gabriele, and Kenneth R. Rose 2002. Pragmatic Development in a Second Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Kasper, Gabriele, and Johannes Wagner. 2011. “A Conversation-analytic Approach to Second Language Acquisition.” In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Dwight Atkinson, 117–142. London: Routledge. Koven, Michele E. 2004. “Getting ‘Emotional’ in Two Languages: Bilinguals’ Verbal Performance of Affect in Narratives of Personal Experience.” Text 24 (4): 471–515. Krashen, Stephen D. 1988. Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. New York: Prentice Hall. Kristjánsson, Kristján. 2007. Aristotle, Emotions, and Education. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Kulick, Don, and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 2004. “Language Socialization.” In Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, 349–368. Oxford: Blackwell. Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2011. “A Complexity Theory Approach to Second Language Development/Acquisition. In Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Dwight Atkinson, 48–72. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Lewis, Michael, Jeannette J. Haviland-Jones, and Lisa Feldman Barrett. 2008. Handbook of Emotions (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Liddicoat, Anthony. 2011. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Continuum. Locke, Abigail, and Derek Edwards. 2003. “Bill and Monica: Memory, Emotion and Normativity in Clinton’s Grand Jury Testimony.” British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 239–256. Lutz, Catherine. 1988. Unnatural Emotions: Everyday Sentiments on a Micronesian Atoll and Their Challenge to Western Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lutz, Catherine, and Lila Abu-Lughod. 1990. Language and the Politics of Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MacIntyre, Paul D., and Richard C. Gardner. 1989. “Anxiety and Second Language Learning: Towards a Theoretical Clarification.” Language Learning 39: 251–275.  doi:  10.1111/j.1467-1770.1989.tb00423.x

Mandelbaum, Jennifer. 2013. “Storytelling in Conversation.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 492–508. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Maynard, Douglas W. 2003. Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Maynard, Douglas W., and Steven E. Clayman. 1991. “The Diversity of Ethnomethodology.” Annual Review of Sociology 17: 385–418. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.17.080191.002125 Maynard, Douglas W., and Richard M. Frankel. 2006. “On Diagnostic Rationality: Bad News, Good News, and the Symptom Residue.” In Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, ed. by John Heritage, and Douglas W. Maynard, 248–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511607172.011

Maynard, Senko K. 2002. Linguistic Emotivity: Centrality of Place, the Topic-Comment Dynamic, and an Ideology of Pathos in Japanese Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  doi:  10.1075/pbns.97

McMillan, David W. 2006. Emotion Rituals: A Resource for Therapists and Clients. London: Routledge.



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

Miller, Jennifer. 2003. Audible Difference: ESL and Social Identity in Schools. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Motha, Suhanthie, and Angel Lin. 2013. “‘Non-coercive Rearrangements’: Theorizing Desire in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 48 (2): 331–359. doi: 10.1002/tesq.126 Mowrer, Orval H. 1950. Learning Theory and Personality Dynamics. New York: Ronald Press. Murray, Garold, Xuesong Gao, and Terry Lamb (eds.). 2011. Identity, Motivation and Autonomy in Language Learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Nikander, Pirjo. 2007. “Emotions in Meeting Talk.” In Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction, ed. by Alexa Hepburn, and Sally Wiggins, 50–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Noels, Kimberly A. 2001. “New Orientations in Language Learning Motivation: Towards a Model of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Integrative Orientations and Motivation.” In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Zoltàn Dörnyei, and Richard W. Schmidt, 43–68. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Noels, Kimberly A., Luc G. Pelletier, Richard Clément, and Robert J. Vallerand. 2003. “Why Are You Learning a Second Language? Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination Theory.” Language Learning 53 (supplement 1): 33–64. Oatley, Keith. 2004. Emotions: A Brief History. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Ochs, Elinor. 1988. Culture and Language Development: Language Acquisition and Language Socialization in a Samoan Village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor. 1996. “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity.” In Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, ed. by John J. Gumperz, and Stephen C. Levinson, 407–438. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, Elinor, and Bambi B. Schieffelin. 1989. “Language Has a Heart.” Text 9 (1): 7–25. Ohta, Amy S. 1994. “Socializing the Expression of Affect: An Overview of Affective Particle Use in the Japanese as a Foreign Language Classroom.” Issues in Applied Linguistics 5 (2): 303–325. Ohta, Amy S. 1999. “Interactional Routines and the Socialization of Interactional Style in Adult Learners of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 1493–1512. Ohta, Amy S. 2001. “A Longitudinal Study of the Development of Expression of Alignment in Japanese as a Foreign Language.” In Pragmatics and Language Teaching, ed. by Kenneth R. Rose, and Gabriele Kasper, 103–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, Rebecca, and Jill Shearin. 1994. “Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework.” Modern Language Journal 78 (1): 12–28. Pae, Tae-Il. 2008. “Second Language Orientation and Self-Determination Theory: A Structural Analysis of the Factors Affecting Second Language Achievement.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 27 (1): 5–27. Parrott, W. Gerrod. 2001a. Emotions in Social Psychology: Essential Readings. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. Parrott, W. Gerrod. 2001b. “The nature of emotions.” In Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intraindividual Processes, ed. by Abraham Tesser, and Norbert Schwarz, 375–390. Oxford: Blackwell. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2005. Emotions and Multilingualism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2007. “Autobiographic Narratives as Data in Applied Linguistics.” Applied Linguistics 28 (2): 163–188. doi: 10.1093/applin/amm008 Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008a. “Emotion and Emotion-laden Words in the Bilingual Lexicon.” Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 11 (2): 147–164.

25

26 Matthew T. Prior

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2008b. “Structural and Conceptual Equivalence in the Acquisition and Use of Emotion Words in a Second Language.” Mental Lexicon 3 (1): 91–120.  doi:  10.1075/ml.3.1.07pav

Pavlenko, Aneta, and Adrian Blackledge (eds.). 2004. Negotiation of Identities in Multilingual Contexts. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pawelczyk, Joanna. 2011. Talk as Therapy: Psychotherapy in a Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. Peräkylä, Anssi, Charles Antaki, Sanna Vehviläinen, and Ivan Leudar. 2008. Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511490002

Peräkylä, Anssi, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.). 2012. Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.001.0001 Planalp, Sally. 1999. Communicating Emotion: Social, Moral, and Cultural Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316257012 Plutchik, Robert. 1991. The Emotions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Potter, Jonathan. 2012. “Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology.” In APA Handbook Of Research Methods in Psychology: Vol. 2. Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological, ed. by Harris M. Cooper, 111–130. Washington: American Psychological Association Press. Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn. 2003. “‘I’m a Bit Concerned’: Early Actions and Psychological Constructions in a Child Protection Helpline.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 36 (3): 197–240. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3603_01 Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn. 2007. “Discursive Psychology: Mind and Reality in Practice.” In Language, Discourse and Social Psychology, ed. by Ann Weatherall, Bernadette M. Watson, and Cindy Gallois, 160–181. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn. 2010. “Putting Aspiration into Words: ‘Laugh Particles’, Managing Descriptive Trouble and Modulating Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 1543– 1555. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.10.003 Prior, Matthew T. 2011. “Self-presentation in L2 Interview Talk: Narrative Versions, Accountability, and Emotionality.” Applied Linguistics 32 (1): 60–76. doi: 10.1093/applin/amq033 Prior, Matthew T. 2016. Emotion and Discourse in L2 Narrative Research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Pudlinski, Christopher. 2005. Doing Empathy and Sympathy: Caring Responses to Troubles Tellings on a Peer Support Line, Discourse Studies 7: 267–288. doi: 10.1177/1461445605052177 Rae, John. 2008. “Lexical Substitution as a Therapeutic Resource.” In Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, Charles Antaki, Sanna Vehviläinen, and Ivan Leudar, 62–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rintell, Ellen M. 1984. “But How Did You Feel about That?: The Learner’s Perception of Emotion in Speech. Applied Linguistics 5 (3): 255–264. doi: 10.1093/applin/5.3.255 Rintell, Ellen M. 1990. “That’s Incredible: Stories of Emotion Told by Second Language Learners and Native Speakers.” In Developing Communicative Competence in a Second Language, ed. by Robin C. Scarcella, Elaine S. Anderson, and Stephen D. Krashen, 75–94. Boston, MA: Heinle and Heinle. Robinson, Peter (ed.). 2002. Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 68–78.



Chapter 1.  Introduction: Contextualizing emotion in multilingual interaction

Saarni, Carolyn and Michael Crowley 1990. “The Development of Emotion Regulation: Effects on Emotional State and Expression.” In Emotions and the Family: For Better or Worse, ed. by Elaine A. Blechman, 53–73. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sacks, Harvey. 1974. “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. by Richard Bauman, and Joel F. Sherzer, 337–353. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scovel, Thomas. 1978. “The Effect of Affect: A Review of the Anxiety Literature.” Language Learning 28: 129–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1978.tb00309.x Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2000. “On Granularity.” Annual Review of Sociology 26: 715–720. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Elinor Ochs, and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.). 1996. Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511620874 Schieffelin, Bambi B. 1990. The Give and Take of Everyday Life: Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, Bambi B., and Ochs, E. 1986. Language Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmidt, Richard W. 1983. “Interaction, Acculturation and the Acquisition of Communicative Competence.” In Sociolinguistics and language Acquisition, ed. by Nessa Wolfson and Elliott Judd, 137–174. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Schumann, John H. 1978. The Pidginization Process: A Model for Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Schumann, John H. 1986. “Research on the Acculturation Model for Second Language Acquisition.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7: 379–392.  doi:  10.1080/01434632.1986.9994254

Schumann, John H. 1997. The Neurobiology of Affect in Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Scovel, Thomas. 2001. Learning New Languages: A Guide to Second Language Acquisition. Boston, MA: Heinle, Cengage Learning. Shaw, Rebecca, and Celia Kitzinger. 2013. “Managing Distress, Effecting Empowerment: A Conversation Analytic Case Study of a Call to the Home Birth Helpline,” International Review of Social Research 3 (2): 7–28. doi: 10.1515/irsr-2013-0008 Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Sidnell, Jack, and Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. So, Sufumi, and Rocío Domínguez. 2004. “Emotion Processes in Second Language Acquisition.” In Learners’ Stories: Difference and Diversity in Language Learning, ed. by Phil Benson, and David Nunan, 42–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation During Storytelling: When Nodding is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1): 31–57. Stivers, Tanya. 2013. “Sequence Organization.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, ed. by Jack Sidnell, and Tanya Stivers, 191–209. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Derek Edwards. 2009. “Accomplishing Social Action with Identity Categories: Mediating and Policing Neighbour Disputes.” In Theorizing Identities and Social Action, ed. by Margaret Wetherell, 95–115. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Stokoe, Elizabeth, and Alexa Hepburn. 2005. “You Can Hear a Lot through the Walls: Noise Formulations in Neighbor Complaints.” Discourse & Society 16 (5): 647–673.  doi:  10.1177/0957926505054940

Suzuki, Satoko (ed.). 2006. Emotive Communication in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.  doi:  10.1075/pbns.151

27

28

Matthew T. Prior

Swain, Merrill, Penny Kinnear, and Linda Steinman. 2011. Sociocultural Theory in Second Language Education: An Introduction through Narratives. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Takahashi, Kimie. 2013. Language Learning, Gender and Desire: Japanese Women on the Move. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Talmy, Steven. 2008. “The Cultural Productions of the ESL Student at Tradewinds High: Contingency, Multidirectionality, and Identity in L2 Socialization.” Applied Linguistics 29: 619–644. te Molder, Hedwig, and Jonathan Potter. 2005. Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489990 Tileagă, Cristian, and Elizabeth Stokoe. 2016. Discursive Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Issues. London: Routledge. Ushioda, Ema. 2001. “Language Learning at University: Exploring the Role of Motivational Thinking.” In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, ed. by Zoltán Dörnyei, and Richard W. Schmidt, 93–125. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. Vitanova, Gergana. 2005. “Authoring the Self in a Non-native Language: A Dialogic Approach to Agency and Subjectivity.” In Dialogue with Bakhtin on Second and Foreign Language Learning, ed. by Joan K. Hall, Gergana Vitanova, and Ludmila Marchenkova, 149–169. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Weiner, Bernard. 1992. Human motivation: Metaphors, Themes, and Research. London: SAGE. Wetherell, Margaret. 2012. Affect and Emotion: A New Social Science Understanding. London: SAGE. doi: 10.4135/9781446250945 Whalen, Jack, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1998. “Observations on the Display and Management of Emotion in Naturally Occurring Activities: The Case of ‘Hysteria’ in Calls to 911.” Social Psychology Quarterly 61: 141–159. doi: 10.2307/2787066 Whalen, Marilyn R., and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Sequential and Institutional Calls for Help.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 172–185. doi: 10.2307/2786750 Whalen, Marilyn R., and Don H. Zimmerman. 1990. “Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in Citizen Calls to the Police.” Language in Society 19: 465–492.  doi:  10.1017/S0047404500014779

Wiggins, Sally. 2002. “Talking with Your Mouth Full: Gustatory Mmms and the Embodiment of Pleasure.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35: 311–336.  doi:  10.1207/S15327973RLSI3503_3

Wilce, James M. 2009. Language and Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511626692

Wilkinson, Sue, and Celia Kitzinger. 2006. “Surprise as an Interactional Achievement: Reaction Tokens in Conversation.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69 (2): 150–182.  doi:  10.1177/019027250606900203

Willig, Carla. 1999. Applied Discourse Analysis: Social and Psychological Interventions. Buckingham: Open University Press. Wong, Jean, and Hansun Zhang Waring. 2010. Conversation Analysis and Second Language Pedagogy. London: Routledge. Woods, Devon. 1996. Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching: Beliefs, Decision-making, and Classroom Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yoshimi, Dina R. 1999. “L1 Language Socialization as a Variable in the Use of Ne by L2 Learners of Japanese.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (11): 1513–1525.

Chapter 2

Smiling together, laughing together Multimodal resources projecting affect in L1/L2 conversational storytelling Gavin Lamb

University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa

Recent conversation-analytic research has examined the projective aspects of multimodal interaction within and between turn-sequences (Streeck 2009a) as well as affectivity or emotive involvement in conversational storytelling (Selting 2010). Taking a perspective on face-to-face interaction as sequentially organized, multimodal, and embedded in various semiotic systems, this study examines how the projection of particular affective stances emerges in naturally-­occurring interactional storytelling. Through close analysis of video-­ recorded data of a conversation between an American man and a Japanese woman, the chapter aims to shed light on this relatively underexplored area of talk between L1 and L2 speakers by elucidating the “crescendo” or build-up of projective linguistic and paralinguistic resources used in the co-construction of intersubjectivity and “humorous” affect within the activity of storytelling. Keywords: projection, affect, L2 talk-in-interaction, storytelling, conversation analysis, laughter, stance-taking

1. Introduction The investigation of how participants use multimodal semiotic resources reflexively and flexibly (Auer 1992) offers key insights into the ways in which interactants achieve, negotiate, and maintain intersubjectivity in interaction. In this endeavor, it has been shown how two independent interactional phenomena, projection and affect, are collaboratively coordinated and embedded in various semiotic ecologies (Streeck, Goodwin, and Lebaron 2011) while supported by verbal, vocal, and visual resources (Selting 2010). The present study situates itself at the nexus of these investigations and extends their focus to multilingual interaction by examining how projective and affective multimodal resources doi 10.1075/pbns.266.02lam © 2016 John Benjamins Publishing Company

30

Gavin Lamb

contribute to the achievement of interactional storytelling between an L1 (first language) English-­speaking story teller and an L2 (second language) English-­ speaking story recipient. Although anticipatory sensitivity in human interaction has been a concern in social research for some time (Mead 1934), it has been a central focus in the conversation analytic (CA) program under the concept of “projection” (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974; Streeck and Jordan 2009). The display of anticipation (Goodwin 2002) towards next turns by participants, retrospectively available to conversation analysts through the close transcription and analysis of audioand video-recorded interaction, further implicates projection in the formation and recognition of actions in co-constructing storytellings and affectivity. Previous research has shown how participants negotiate the sequential arc of interactional storytelling from initiation to closing to activity transition (Mandelbaum 2013). Studies have also shown how the emotional textures made relevant by participants draw on verbal and embodied resources to deploy displays of affectivity that are both similar with and divergent from those of their interlocutor (Ruusuvuori 
2013; Selting 2010). In exploring the mutually elaborative relations between projection and affectivity to investigate their role in the interactional environment of storytelling, this analysis examines how participants tune their “emotive involvement” (Selting 2010) to approximate their interlocutor’s affective stance at particular junctures through the recruitment of a range of multimodal semiotic resources. In considering how participants mutually align to the activity of storytelling and affiliate with the affective stance(s) made relevant as the story progresses towards its climax, the musical metaphor of “crescendo” is useful for capturing the marked (i.e. noticeable or conspicuous in relation to surrounding talk) increase of emotive involvement that is mutually oriented to, sustained, and heightened as participants “manage affectivity” (Selting 2010) in their interaction. The following sections situate this study in the relevant literature on projection, affect, and storytelling, and further foreground how the relatively understudied area of L2 or multilingual interaction in relation to these topics of inquiry provides an illuminating site to explore how emotion is actively managed in situ. Following this is the analysis of a storytelling sequence that makes visible the ecology of multimodal resources used in the management of affectivity, the various flexibility of these resources for projecting affect, and the concomitant roles of alignment and affiliation (Stivers 2008) in projecting and constructing the emotional contours of a telling for the participants.



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

2. Projection Projection, the anticipatory or “forward-looking nature of human communication” (Streeck and Jordan 2009), has received considerable conversation-analytic attention over the past several decades. In discussing the “projectability” of different turn-construction unit types, Sacks et al. (1974) were the first to elucidate how participants’ sensitivity to the unfolding talk relies on the projective qualities of semiotic resources: There are various unit-types with which a speaker may set out to construct a turn… 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. Unit-types lacking the feature of projectability may not be usable in the same way.  (702)

Recognizing the variety of linguistic resources that participants must monitor to co-construct tightly coordinated sequences in talk, Sacks et al. (1974: 703) suggested, “How projection of unit-types is accomplished, so as to allow such ‘no gap’ starts by next speakers, is an important question on which linguists can make major contributions.” In that early work, the projectability of a turn-­constructional unit (TCU) was viewed as largely dependent on the syntactic structure of a given unit in a particular context; only brief mention was given to other linguistic and non-linguistic resources and practices that may be involved in projection. Notably, in considering embodied projective resources, Schegloff (1984) early on wrote: A great deal of the talk in interaction arrives on a prepared scene. By the time any particular bit of talk is produced, many of its aspects have been prefigured, sometimes in quite distinct ways…, often in ways much harder to pin down… Posture, gesture, facial expression, preceding talk, voice quality, and the like all till the soil into which the words are dropped.  (291)

In the decades since Sacks et al.’s (1974) and Schegloff ’s (1984) seminal analyses of projection, CA researchers have extended these insights to explore the role of projection in interaction. In particular, research examining prosody in talk (Couper-­Kuhlen and Selting 1996; Fox 2001), as well as studies taking multimodal approaches (Goodwin 2000; Mondada 2007), have begun to shed light on the ways in which the projectability of utterances is oriented to and deployed by participants through the use of diverse verbal and embodied resources. More recently, this research has uncovered a range of multimodal resources in interaction that afford varying degrees of flexibility in their projection and recognition of next turns at talk. Recognizing the pervasive role of projection in interaction,

31

32

Gavin Lamb

this study draws on a multimodal and ecological approach to explore how this “forward-looking” principle of interaction is implicated in the “management of affectivity” (Selting 2010). 3. Affective stance-taking in storytelling Many researchers who investigate affective practices with the goal of integrating them into a comprehensive approach to emotion (Wetherell 2012) seek also to explicate how affectivity articulates with other aspects of interaction, most notably through the analysis of assessments (Goodwin and Goodwin 1992) and stance-­ taking (Kärkkäinen 2006; Stivers 2008). CA researchers (e.g., Jefferson 1988; Maynard 2003; Stivers 2008) have provided further insight on affective stance by making a distinction between affiliation and alignment, two related concepts that have frequently been used interchangeably in the communication research literature. While alignment involves recipient actions that support the progression of a particular activity in progress, it does not involve claims of access to an interlocutor’s epistemic or affective stances. In contrast, affiliation entails the recipient of talk claiming to have access to their interlocutor’s stance through displays that “…  endorse the teller’s perspective … even if only preliminarily” (Stivers 2008: 32). How recipients display access to the “valence and relative strength” of their interlocutor’s stances is a crucial dimension for the analysis of interaction where participants show both (dis)alignment with the activity underway, and (dis)affiliation with the emotional textures of a narrated experience. This distinction is particularly relevant in face-to-face storytelling environments, where participants utilize a variety of multimodal resources for seeking, displaying, and claiming access to shared affective and epistemic stances. Conversation analysts have further explored storytelling in interaction to uncover “the stable set of features that interactants deploy to produce storytelling as a recognizable activity and through which they implement a variety of social actions” (Mandelbaum 2013: 492). Recent research has also explored the multimodal resources participants use in aligning and affiliating with a storytelling sequence (Russuovori and Peräkylä 2009; Selting 2010; Stivers 2008). By orienting to the telling of a story, the recipient aligns with or “supports the structural asymmetry of the storytelling activity” (Stivers 2008: 34). This achievement of mutual alignment to the storytelling activity is key to successfully advancing the story in the ongoing interaction. Further, participants must also negotiate the interactional contingencies of affiliative and disaffiliative uptake of the story-in-progress. Building on the work of Sacks (1974) and Jefferson (1978), Stivers (2008: 32) emphasizes “a conceptualization of storytelling as an activity that both takes a stance toward what is being



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

reported and makes the taking of a stance by the recipient relevant.” The present study explores how L1 and L2 participants “do storytelling” as an organized social activity through the joint accomplishments of alignment and affiliation. In managing intersubjectivity in the storytelling sequence analyzed here, affective resources such as smiling and laughter (Glenn 2003; Jefferson 1979; Jefferson, Sacks, and Schegloff 1987), in addition to visual (gestures, gaze), verbal, vocal (prosodic), and other multimodal resources, are shown to be consequential for progressing the story as well as supporting the interactants’ interpersonal relationship. The general claim made in this chapter is that emotive involvement, and in particular, affiliation with more specifically indexed affective stances (e.g., humor, surprise, fear) in a telling, may sequentially be built up through a “crescendo” of multimodal projective resources utilized by both teller and recipient, who display increasing emotive involvement in and affiliation with the story and with each other. However, to achieve a shared stance requires interactants to coordinate their conduct before, during, and after the telling. A story recipient may display affiliative uptake to and alignment with a story’s increasing emotive progression, but a shared stance towards the story climax begins much earlier as it is built by the interactional contingencies of the unfolding talk. Although conjectural at this point, the negotiation of stance may be particularly crucial in L1/L2 talk if the participants have differential levels of linguistic and cultural competencies, in addition to the generic interactional and multimodal resources that are shared among human societies (Prior 2014). Interactants’ asymmetrical levels of access to semiotic resources in L1/L2 interaction may in turn contribute to particular semiotic ecologies which provide unique affordances for maintaining alignment and establishing access to and affiliation with each other’s affective stance. Further, within the “ecological huddle” (Goffman 1964) of the L1/L2 interaction analyzed here, an American L1 English story teller and a Japanese L2 English story recipient negotiate the combinatory potential of various multimodal resources as they establish intersubjectivity and draw on novel projective affordances for “tilling the soil” of the emotional ground of conversation.

Multimodal approaches to projection in Japanese 4.  and English interaction As research on projection in talk has increasingly expanded over the decades since it was first proposed as a topic for further investigation by Sacks et al. (1974), analyses on the range of resources utilized and oriented to by participants in interaction have continued to illuminate how verbal and non-verbal resources

33

34

Gavin Lamb

intermingle to create a “projection space” (Schegloff 1984) in conversation and thus foreshadow next speech units to come in the unfolding interaction. Work in this area has led not only to the cross-fertilization of a variety of perspectives on human interaction, but it has raised new questions concerning how different languages, and therefore different linguistic environments, provide different affordances for participants and thus different kinds of projective environments (Auer 2005; Sidnell 2009). In her analysis of how grammatical structures are used in the construction of turns in Japanese, Tanaka (2000) showed Japanese to be a late projecting language. The linguistic environment of Japanese, in contrast to English, which “massively enables early projectability” (2) of social actions, allows for the “incremental transformability of an emerging utterance” (13) and thereby puts constraints on the ways in which participants may anticipate possible transition-relevance places (or TRPs). However, Goodwin (2002) notes that Tanaka’s study was focused on specific aspects of linguistic resources, in particular syntactic projection, and this is “but one component of a larger ecology of sign systems used to build action within interaction” (Goodwin 2002: 30). Goodwin points out that analyzing this complex “system of sign systems” needs to take into account the ways in which an array of symbolic resources is used in interaction. These complexities therefore demand a relational approach that analyzes the different channels of communication and how they constrain and enable one another in the sequential unfolding of interaction. In this respect, an ecological metaphor for understanding the rich symbolic environment people find themselves in on a daily basis has proven to be helpful for researchers in revealing the complex relations between the multimodal resources used in face-to-face conversation. As Goodwin (2003: 30) writes: More generally, this suggests the importance of not focusing analysis exclusively on the properties of individual sign systems, but instead investigating the organization of the ecology of sign systems which have evolved in conjunction with each other within the primordial site for human action: multiple participants using talk to build action while attending to the distinctive properties of a relevant setting.

Building on previous research examining the role of nonverbal resources used in L2 talk, Mori and Hayashi (2006) analyzed the contingent processes through which L1 and L2 speakers of Japanese coordinate talk and embodied action for the achievement of intersubjectivity. In particular, they focused on “embodied completion,” described by Olsher (2004: 221) as “launching a turn at talk, and then at a point where some trajectory of the turn is projectable, ceasing to talk and completing the action that had been initiated by the particular turn through gesture or embodied display.” Based on analyses of video-recorded interactions,



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

Mori and Hayashi (2006) conclude that “in spite of their lack of linguistic competence specific to the L2, these learners bring a full range of fundamental competences, gained through their first language acquisition process, to the site of the L2 interaction” (214). With a focus on how participants achieve and maintain intersubjectivity in interaction, research approaches examining L2 interaction from a CA-SLA perspective have pushed for a “non-deficit view of L2 learning” (Hall, Hellermann, and Pekarek Doehler 2011; Kasper 2006; Mori and Hayashi 2006), which has been seen as a welcome contribution to the field of second language acquisition (Ortega 2011). Taking stock of the research on projection, the evolving currents of multimodal analysis of face-to-face interaction, and the relatively understudied area of L2 and multilingual interaction from these perspectives, the present study’s aim is to shed further light on how the multimodal resources at the immediate disposal of human beings participating in everyday sites of interaction are no longer simply “the outer satellites of the verbal sun” (Levinson 2013: 124). Rather, verbal resources in concert with other resources both constrain and provide affordances for one another, emphasize and contextualize each other, and thus contribute to the establishment, maintenance and negotiation of intersubjectivity in producing intelligible courses of action for participants. Taking this multimodal perspective on projection in L2 and multilingual interaction, this study examines how an L1 English teller and a L2 English/L1 Japanese recipient use various semiotic resources – notably nodding, smiling, and laughter – as key resources in projecting, providing, claiming access to, and affiliating with particular affective stances in a storytelling sequence. 5. Data The data analyzed in this chapter are drawn from a series of video-recorded conversations involving K, an L2 English/L1 Japanese speaker, and M, an L1 English speaker, collected as part of a larger project on interactions between L1 Japanese speakers of English and L1 English speakers in naturally occurring conversational contexts. The particular storytelling sequence analyzed in this chapter was initially of interest as a series of “second stories” (Sacks 1995) generated by K and M over the length of their discussions. As the management of affectivity emerged as a focal analytic interest in the data, the analysis centered on one of these embedded stories where both participants are aligned to a storytelling activity allowing for gradually increasing emotive involvement over extended turns at talk. M is a male L1 English speaker from the West Coast of the US and K is a female L1 Japanese speaker with limited proficiency in English, studying in an

35

36

Gavin Lamb

English as a Second Language program in the US. She has been studying English in the US for approximately four months and has known M for approximately two months at the time of the recording. The conversation below occurred earlier in the evening when a dinner with friends was scheduled to be held, the interaction having been incidental to the larger activity of preparing the dinner. The other invitees had not yet arrived and I took this opportunity to video record M and K’s conversation which had started a few minutes earlier. The entire recording of their conversation was approximately 18 minutes long. Throughout their interaction, playing on a stereo in the background is a recording by a group of three musicians that are friends of M, in particular, the lead member of the band, Ryan. This serves as a “conversation starter” of sorts, occasioning the topical focus of K and M’s conversation. The conversation initially centered around how the band formed as a group. 6. Analysis I will begin with Excerpt 1, transcribed according to standard conversation-analytic conventions (Jefferson 2004), to provide a point of entry for the storytelling sequence in Excerpts 2–5 that will be analyzed in closer detail. Excerpt 1 includes a brief segment of K and M’s talk prior to the storytelling sequence. In order to explicate how the participants display and project affectivity in the sequential unfolding of their embodied interaction, the in-depth multimodal analysis will make use of screen captures and a modified transcript to include the representation of gestures, gaze, and facial expressions (Selting 2010). 6.1

“We think the same way about music”: The larger storytelling sequence

K’s focus of the talk beginning in line 53 is initiated in response to M’s prior story (not included here), with the overall progressivity of their turn-taking over the course of K and M’s interaction constituting a series of second stories and assessments of stories and topics (Ruusuvuori and Peräkylä 2009). Excerpt 1 1:55−3:25 053 K: 054 055 M: 056 K: 057 058

oh difficult (0.2) because, (0.2) so (0.6) they are (0.2) its far yeah? ↓hmmm its all far (0.5) so (0.5) I think (0.1) so (0.6) they are (0.3) sames mind is important



059 060 061 062 063 064 065 066 067 068 069 070 071 072 073 074 075 076 077 078 079 080 081 082 083 084 085 086 087 088 089 090 091 092 093 094 095 096 097 098 099 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

Chapter 2.  Smiling together

M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M:

K: M:

K: M: K: M:

hm[mm [because (0.4) very far [just (0.4) [yeah if in trouble [uh-huh [it’s (0.4) near‘s easy. ye[ah [and th- calling? and meetings?= =ye[ah [ju- (0.6) near yeah but (0.1) fa:r yeah far is uh- (0.3) uh difficult yeah so I need to the important (in th-) sames mi:nd, (0.3) mm-hm same thinki:ng?= =yeah and sames mind. yeah and uh: (0.2) if is trouble? uh-huh (0.4) and uh: mista:kes? hm[mm [and uh (0.3) same thinking’s easy yeah? ↓yeah and they are (0.8) each other understand [easily. [hm-hmm yeah, (0.5) they didn’t (1.7) they weren’t looking to:: (0.4) play together hm-hmm it just happened (0.7) bec- because they have the same mind, (0.5) a:nd >like they realized,< oh (0.2) we work really we:ll (0.1) togeth[er [ye::ah we we think (0.6) the same wa:y about music, (0.4) a::nd it’s a good match. uh-hmm and so it’s (0.3) kinda easy for them, (0.8) and so: yeah (0.2) like it’s very (0.7) natural- happen- (0.1) happened very naturally.

37

38

Gavin Lamb

108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129

K: M:

K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M: K: M:

wo:[:w [˚y’know so:˚ >and then also MY friend RYan?< (0.4) is SINgle? (0.5) but (0.2) >the guy in los ANgeles the guy in [new YOrk< [mm-hmm (0.4) MARried?, (0.3) both are MARried,= =oh:: >and so: Ryan is sIngle.< oh:: >so HE can go: ba[ck and forth< when he needs [hhhahahahahahaha IT’s okay hhheh[˚heheheh˚ [they have families hhheh[hehehe˚((breathy voice)) [RYan can hhhehhehe can TRAvel (0.9) but

The sequence begins with K’s assessment of M’s prior telling which concerns how his friend’s band manages to communicate and make music successfully (by producing music over the internet) despite its members living in different cities in the US. K, however, initially assesses this situation as problematic, “oh difficult” (line 53) and goes on to describe and reiterate how important it is to have something along the lines of ‘a similar frame of mind’ (lines 56–58, 74–75, 78, 80, 87) and mutual understanding (lines 89–90) in order to be successful in a band that participates at a distance (“far”) from each other. M’s telling begins in line 91 with his affiliative second assessment of K’s assessment, affirming that, perhaps contrary to expectation, working at a distance actually comes quite easily and “naturally” to the band as they happen to be a “good match” (line 103) for each other. Finally, in line 110 M initiates an embedded telling that serves to provide further evidence for why this potentially problematic situation of participating long-distance actually works well for the band. The gist of the embedded story is that Ryan, being the only single member (i.e., not married) in his band, is able to travel more easily to meet up with his band mates in various cities due to the fact that they are “married” and “have families” and thus are less mobile than he is. M and K’s management of affectivity in M’s brief embedded telling (lines 110–129) is the focus of the analysis in Excerpts 2–5, where M seeks to affectively gloss this final component of his telling as “humorous.”



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

6.2 Embedded story launch The primary focus of the following analysis in Excerpts 2–5 is on the crescendo of heightened emotive involvement in M’s embedded short story. I have glossed the affective stance that is negotiated and achieved in M’s telling as “humorous.” The excerpt below begins with an analysis of M’s launching of this embedded telling. Excerpt 2 108 K: 109 M: 110 M: m:

111 M: m: k:

Figure 1.

wo:[:w [˚y’know so:˚ |Figure 1 |>and then also MY friend |RYan?< |((looks down smiling, points at central |spot on ‘map’)) |Figure 2 |(0.4) is |sIngle? |(0.5) |((pointing,smiling |((shifts gaze to K, |continues)) |((nods)) |((nods))



Figure 2.

With his smiling and increased tempo co-occurring with the initiation of the first utterance in line 110, M displays an affective shift from the previous sequence (lines 91–109 in Excerpt 1), which was more serious in tenor, and a crescendo of heightened emotive involvement is displayed by M in launching this new embedded sequence. Thus, in line 110, M prefaces the embedded sequence with the utterance “and then also MY friend RYan?” as syntactically and semantically tied to the previous storytelling sequence. The prosodic and syntactic format of the turn highlights this specific person reference and projects it as the focus of the story to follow. Coupled with his utterance of “Ryan” in line 110 (Figure 1), M simultaneously gazes at his left hand while using it to point at a spot on the table in front of him, thereby representing Ryan’s location on an invisible “map of the USA” that he had constructed earlier in the telling through a series of gestures representing the

39

40 Gavin Lamb

geographic locations of the three members of the band. Streeck (2009b) uses the heuristic of “model-world making” (131) to describe this combination of various depictive gesturing practices used by M in this embedded story: This is the type of gestural depiction that occurs when people tell stories and begin by delineating the setting, then populate it with actors, locations, props, and locations, and finally depict events (actions, thwarted actions, inanimate processes) in the world by dynamic motions and enactments.  (Streeck 2009b: 292)

Thus, by the teller shifting his gaze to his own pointing at line 110, the recipient is invited to see the utterance and gestures as depicting an actual or imaginary world, establishing an ecology of multimodal signs (Goodwin 2002; Streeck 2010) to be oriented to by the recipient. The ecology of multimodal signs encompasses not only “a gesture’s relations to the participants’ attentional field, that is, the field which they perceive, construe, or imagine” (Streeck 2010: 232) but also the facial expressions and prosodic contours of the utterances. The structuring of the participants’ imagination through depictive gesture is an aspect of this sequence that becomes crucial to its build-up and climax as it unfolds and is used as a key resource by M to construct a mutually shared affective and epistemic stance towards his telling. In line 111, the 0.4-second pause provides M with an affordance for orienting the unfolding talk to his depictive gesture, maintaining his gaze on his own hands. The gesturally depicted geographical locations on an imaginary U.S. map become an object of focus in the unfolding talk and thus a further affordance for building heightened emotive involvement as the storytelling progresses. Not only is this achieved through M’s gaze at his own depictive gestures during the telling, but he physically moves his body back in his chair slightly to accommodate the “depicting space” on the table in front of him and thus further visually highlights for the recipient his depictive gestures as a key element in the telling. In line 111, after a brief (0.4) pause, M deploys the lexical item “single?”, coupled with a gaze shift to K, and uttered with rising intonation, followed by a 0.5-second pause. Although there is no verbal affiliation on the part of K in line 111, the video data shows that M uses these pauses coupled with gaze shifts to his hands (Figure 1) and to K (Figure 2) in an organized fashion to negotiate and maintain intersubjectivity throughout the sequence. At each pause in line 111, K nods, then nods again making eye contact with M after the lexical production of “SINgle?” (Figure 2). K’s nodding here occurs after M has “provided access” (Stivers 2008) to his stance on the story-world, confirming her understanding that something is funny or surprising about Ryan being single, through visual (smiling, gestures) and prosodic (increased tempo, rising intonation) cues. Nodding here by K achieves not only an alignment to the activity of storytelling, but also an affiliative



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

response showing that she shares M’s stance on the story-thus-far, a story she has no experience with and thus would not normally be able to assess without M’s provision of his stance. As Stivers (2008: 48) notes, That nods are what is provided in response to access and are subsequently treated as appropriate (whereas vocal continuers are not) is evidence that they are response tokens that claim access. In this mid-telling sequential position, they affiliate because a claim of access is a claim to understand and accept the perspective of the teller (whether they actually agree).

Thus, through the interactive work that goes into establishing a mutually shared stance in the moment-by-moment-increments of the launch of storytelling, members are seen to utilize verbal, vocal, and visual resources in aligning with the storytelling activity and affiliating with the storyteller’s stance. In the following excerpt, these multimodal resources are recruited by M to display a crescendo of emotive involvement providing affordances for K to both align and affiliate with the unfolding storytelling sequence. 6.3

R  ecruiting multimodal resources to display a crescendo of heightened emotive involvement at mid-telling

Excerpt 3 112a M: m: k: 112b M: m: 113

K: k:

Figure 3.

|Figure 3 |but (0.2)|>the|guy in los |ANgeles |((smiling, shifts gaze to hands)) |((points to LS of map)) |((slight nod)) |Figure 4 |Figure 5 |the guy in |[new YOrk< |((smiling, shifts gaze |((shifts gaze to K)) |and points to RS of map |with RH)) |[mm-hmm |((nods))



Figure 4.

41

42

Gavin Lamb

Figure 5. 114 M: m: k: 115 M: m: k: 116 K: k:

Figure 7.



Figure 6.

|Figure 6 |(0.4) M|ARried?, |((smiling, raises eyebrows, |taps LS & RS of map |simultaneously with BH)) |((raises eyebrows slightly)) |Figure 7 |(0.3) both are |MARried,= |((continues tapping BH on LS and RS |multiple times, eyebrows |raised throughout, smiling)) |((nods, continues with raised eyebrows)) |Figure 8 =|oh:: |((maintains raised eyebrows))



Figure 8.

In line 112a, before M continues with the next utterance in his telling, he redirects his gaze back to his hands, very briefly scanning left to right (during the (0.2)



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

pause, in a sense re-depicting the “map” for both participants as an interpretive tool offering affordances for the talk to come) before locking his gaze on his left hand which is placed on the left side, where the West Coast would be located. With the disjunctive “but” M foreshadows a contrast to come in the unfolding telling and M again uses both gaze and gesture to build the contrast through the use of these multimodal resources. Continuing with his utterance, the increased rate at which the units are delivered by M in lines 112a and 112b is marked relative to his previous talk. Not only does the tempo of M’s speech increase, the speed of his gesturing on the depicted map on the table increases as well, emphasized with a rapid tapping at each “city location” when redeveloping the geographical contrast between band members’ locations. M also places slightly increased stress on the second syllable of each city name (“los ANgeles”, “new YOrk”) in a rhythmic fashion, pointing and touching the depicted geographical locations on the “map” one after the other. At this point, the overall gestalt of these various modalities displays what could be glossed as a “surprising” or “humorous” affective stance and projects this stance as relevant to the unfolding telling. This is achieved through the affordances provided by the different modalities available to the participants, including such spatial and temporal affordances as gestures and facial expressions in face-to-face interaction. K’s slight nod in line 112a co-occurs with the second syllable of M’s utterance of los ANgeles, and although K and M do not make eye contact here, with this non-verbal recipient token K displays her alignment to the telling as well as her tightly-knit on-line monitoring of the sequence. M continues rhythmically uttering the second unit in line 112b smiling throughout and again tapping on the “map”, this time on its right side, to represent the geographical location of New York. With M’s utterance of “new YOrk”, he shifts his gaze back to K with a slight smile and with both index fingers still resting on the table at the places established earlier as representing the respective cities on the East and West Coast of the US. K orients to this by again nodding and also upgrading her response by coupling her nod with the recipient token or continuer (Schegloff 1982) “mm-hmm” (line 113) to display her alignment to the telling (Stivers 2008). In line 114, reestablishing eye contact with K during a brief pause (0.4), M deploys a collection of multimodal resources to invite her to affiliate with the “humorous” stance he is taking toward the telling. His nonverbal resources include raising his eyebrows (line 114), increasing the intensity of his smile, and shifting his posture. When M deploys the lexical item “MARried?”, its prosodic contour has a rising pitch on the final syllable and co-occurs with M’s re-tapping of the map with both right hand and left hand index fingers. K orients to this focus on the lexical item “MARried?” with increasing emotive involvement, reciprocating M’s facial expression with raised eyebrows and keeping them raised to and beyond

43

44 Gavin Lamb

line 116, thus warranting the analysis of M’s actions as organizing his telling in a way that establishes a shared affective stance towards the telling as “humorous” or “surprising” (or at least projecting something “humorous” or “surprising” to come in the climax). In line 115, M repeats the lexical item “MARried”, however, this time the lexical item is embedded in a more syntactically complete utterance, “both are MARried.” Throughout line 115, M continues tapping the “map” multiple times during the initial 0.3-second pause as well as during his utterance. Having established mutual gaze, M shifts the focus from his tapping, which remains at the periphery of the previously established attentional field, and recruits it as a resource to contextualize the affective stance taken towards the developing story, along with his continuing facial expression (raised eyebrows, smiling) and verbal cues (repetition of and stress placed on the lexical item “married” uttered with rising intonation). Further, during this (0.3) pause between the first production of “MARried” and its repetition, K nods slightly displaying affiliative uptake of M’s stance (Stivers 2008); she also raises her eyebrows, mirroring M’s raised eyebrows, thus establishing further mutual heightened emotive involvement and affiliative uptake which continues to build. The display of shared facial expressions here are recruited as resources in displaying continued affiliative uptake of M’ stance towards the story-world. Following M’s previous utterance in line 115, K’s oh-prefaced response in line  116 (“oh::” ) indicates a change-of-state (Heritage 1984) and displays the asymmetrical knowledge both members have of the story-world. However, in addition to this asymmetrical knowledge base, K’s oh-token displays a lack of access to M’s affective stance as well. In maintaining raised eyebrows and fixed gaze throughout M’s multi-TCU (lines 112–116), K simultaneously displays her alignment to the telling in progress, while also displaying a lack of access to M’s stance. This analysis is warranted by examining M’s response to K’s oh-prefaced utterance in the next excerpt just before the story’s climax. 6.4 The climax Excerpt 4 116

K: k:

117a M: m:

|Figure 8 =|oh:: |((maintains raised eyebrows)) |Figure 9 >and so:|Ry= |((shifts gaze to map |taps map twice with |RH in center))



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

117b M: m:

|Figure 10 |=an is sIngle.< |((shifts gaze back to K, RH index finger)) |remains rested on table))

118

|Figure 11 |oh:: |((lowers eyebrows, slight smile))

K: k:

119a M: m:

119b M: m: 120

K:

Figure 9.

Figure 11.

|Figure 12 >so |HE can go: |((smiling, |follows it

|Figure 13 |ba[ck and forth< shifts and locks gaze to RH, rhythmically from LS to RS))

|Figure 14 |when he needs |((shifts gaze to K, speeds |up rhythmic motion of his |RH across the map))

[hhhahahahahahaha





Figure 10.

Figure 12.

45

46 Gavin Lamb

Figure 13.



Figure 14.

By continuously monitoring M’s telling for verbal, vocal, and visual cues which variously project the climax of the story, K must anticipate both the moment of the story’s completion and the stance taken by M towards that completion. However, there seems to be a slight lapse in shared stance in line 116 following K’s oh-prefaced response. Prosodically, her utterance in line 116 is marked by a sharp rise-fall intonation contour, louder volume, and vowel stretch. Visually, K maintains her raised eyebrows as she makes eye contact with M who is raising his eyebrows as well, raising them slightly more and opening her eyes slightly wider with the production of “oh::”. Both prosodic and visual cues together can display an increasingly heightened emotive involvement in the telling and are “marked” relative to members’ previous utterances and embodied interaction. Prosodically, members establish what cues are marked by reference to the surrounding talk (e.g. through differences in frequency, intensity, tempo, voice quality or intonation; Chafe 2002). Here “marked” is used to refer to “cues that deviate from the forms for the signaling of behavior of the same speaker in surrounding segments of talk. …The ‘marked’ realization of a cue is always a more noticeable or more conspicuous one in comparison to its ‘unmarked’ counterpart” (Selting 2010: 236). Thus, “[t]he change-of-state token acknowledges the information provided and claims to now have realized something that was previously opaque…” (Stivers 2008: 47), i.e., that Ryan’s band mates, in contrast to himself, are married. However, in line 117a, M treats K’s response in line 116 as needing a reintroduction of “the initial characterization” (Sacks 1974) of the story used by M in the preface (“Ryan is single” in lines 110–111), which still remains a puzzle awaiting to be resolved in the climax of the story. This shows that K’s change-of-state token, oh, as opposed to her nodding in the previous excerpts in mid-tellings before the climax of the story, fails to claim access to M’s stance towards the impending climax, and



Chapter 2.  Smiling together

thus is treated by M as requiring him to reestablish his stance towards the initial characterization of the story as “humorous” before he may effectively deliver the punch-line of the story in the climax. M accomplishes this by shifting his gaze back to his right hand (his left hand still framing the left side or “Los Angeles” point on the “map”) co-occurring with his utterance, “Ryan” in line 117a (Figure 9). Within the same utterance of “Ryan”, once the “map” has been brought back into the participants’ attentional field through M’s depictive gestures, while leaving his index finger pointing at Ryan’s location on the table, M then shifts his gaze back to K (line 117b: Figure 10). By leaving his finger on the table, he projects the continuation of his turn in a multi-TCU through “forward-gesturing” (Streeck 2009a). Thus, in recruiting projective verbal, vocal, and visual resources in the build-up to the climax of the story, M “draws on the multimodality of the communicating body to enable others to anticipate the trajectory of an action” (Streeck 2009a: 161) providing a range of multimodal affordances directing K to hear the upcoming climax as “humorous.” In her vocal continuer in line 118, K deploys another change-of-state token, however this time delivered in a shorter burst, with less intensity and with falling intonation in addition to a lowering of her eyebrows in a way that hints that she is smiling (her mouth is being covered by her right hand, Figure 11). In contrast to her previous change of state token in line 116, by smiling this time she claims access to M’s stance towards the projected climax of the story and is now in a position to respond to the climax of the telling taking a stance that “mirrors the stance” (Stivers 2008) that M had initially conveyed in the preface, a stance glossed here as “humorous” or “funny.” The climax then arrives at line 119a: “>so HE can go: back and forthP (0.7)

p y 323 P

+GZ>paper +GZ>Y +RHIF taps paper +GZ>paper +GZ>P demo +nyuu yooku:, (0.9) +nyuu yooku +ni: (.) but New York New York in

p 324 P

+GZ>paper [sunda +toki, live-PST time

But, New York, when I lived in New York

325 Y

[nn.

p 327 P

writes 911 >nine one one
Y GZ at paper (1.6) nn.

(1.0)

p 331 P

+RHIF to nose +>nine one one
paper +RH>paper +e-? (+>ita [noY +nod [+>nn nn [nn nn.
uso.< lie

You’re kidding.

p 335 P 336 Y

+RHIF PNT to shoulder +yeah. [>uso.< lie

You’re kidding.



Chapter 3.  Disaster story

p p y 337 P

+GZ>paper +GZ>Y +RH>paper +GZ>paper +GZ>P [watashi +wa +(.) >nine one +one< +(1.2) I TOP

I…

y p 338 P 339

p

p p 340 P

GZ at P +GZ>paper +GZ>Y >+nine one one< (n)o, (.) +n. (LK/OBJ) RHIF to upper lip (1.3) +GZ>paper +GZ>Y +RH>paper +ai- (0.4) (no) toki- +o* (LK) time *

when 9/11…

341

(0.5)

y 342 Y

+head forward, eyebrows raise +ita no::¿ exist-PST NOM

You were there?

p 343 P

+nodding +nn nn nn nn.

p y 344 Y

+sets paper down +eyebrows raise further +hn↑nn?

y p 345 P

+leans back +GZ>Y +chikaku des:. close COP-POL

I was close by.

Peony launches the story as a “touched-off remembrance” (Frazier 2007) prompted by the active frame of frightening experiences (320–321). After locating the story in time and place (323–324), she writes “911” on a piece of scratch paper while saying the number in English2 (327). Although Yui is gazing at the paper, 2. For readers familiar with North American culture, “nine one one” (911) evokes the general emergency phone number in the US and Canada or the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The standard English reference has become “nine eleven.” It is unclear why Peony, a longtime U.S. resident, does not use “nine eleven” for unambiguous reference, but it is unlikely that her reference selection is problematic for Yui. In Japanese, the most common reference to the September 11, 2001 events is “9∙11,” said kyu ten ichi ichi ‘nine dot one one’, or

65

66 Alfred Rue Burch and Gabriele Kasper

the written and oral version of the number get the same neutral and minimal acknowledgement from her (329) as the time and place formulation (325), perhaps owing to there being no clear grammatical or intonational completion at this point. In the remaining 15 lines of the excerpt, the co-participants are occupied with achieving two purposes of the story preface, (1) to reach shared understanding that Peony was in New York during the events of September 11, 2001, and (2)  to generate a shared stance towards the projected story as a disaster story. Orienting to the failed attempt to achieve mutual understanding, Peony repeats “911” while pointing her right index finger to her nose (331). This common self-­ referential gesture, re-used later in different versions (335, 339), connects Peony with “911” and places her at the scene. By repeating “911” rather than, for instance, substituting the metonymy with a description, Peony treats the name and its referent as shared knowledge and shows her expectation that Yui is able to recognize the referent. With the presumption of recognition, Peony orients to “911” as an event in recent world history and therefore shared public knowledge. To the gesturally elaborated repair, Yui responds by widening her eyes while simultaneously producing a confirmation check with rising intonation e-? >ita no