Itseohjautuvuuden sosiaalinen rakentaminen

Kirjoitus on osa "Elämän peruskysymykset – Anssi Peräkylän 60-vuotisjuhlakirja" -kirja

Three Multimodal Action Packages in Responses to Proposals During Joint Decision-Making : The Embodied Delivery of Positive Assessments Including the Finnish Particle Ihan "Quite"

Joint decision-making is a thoroughly collaborative interactional endeavor. To construct the outcome of the decision-making sequence as a "joint" one necessitates that the participants constantly negotiate their shared activity, not only with reference to the content of the decisions to be made, but also with reference to whether, when, and upon what exactly decisions are to be made in the first place. In this paper, I draw on a dataset of video-recorded dyadic planning meetings between two church officials as data, investigating a collection of 35 positive assessments with the Finnish particle ihan "quite" occurring in response to a proposal (e.g., taa on ihan kiva "this is quite nice"). The analysis focuses on the embodied delivery of these assessments in combination with their other features: their sequential location and immediate interactional consequences (i.e., accounts, decisions, abandoning of the proposal), their auxiliary verbal turn-design features (i.e., particles), and the "agent" of the proposals that they are responsive to (i.e., who has made the proposal and whether it is based on some written authoritative material). Three multimodal action packages are described, in which the assessment serves 1) to accept an idea in principle, which is combined with no speaker movement, 2) to concede to a plan, which is associated with notable expressive speaker movement (e.g., head gestures, facial expressions) and 3) to establish a joint decision, which is accompanied by the participants' synchronous body movements. The paper argues that the relative decision-implicativeness of these three multimodal action packages is largely based on the management and distribution of participation and agency between the two participants, which involves the participants using their bodies to position themselves toward their co-participants and toward the proposals "in the air" in distinct ways.Peer reviewe

Monitoring and evaluating body knowledge : metaphors and metonymies of body position in children's music instrument instruction

This paper examines music instrument teachers' instructive use of noun metaphors and metonymies of behaviors related to the playing and handling of a musical instrument. Drawing on 10 video-recorded 30-40 min-long instrument lessons as data, and conversation analysis as a method, the paper examines the temporal location of these figurative turns (i.e., instruction turns including a noun metaphor or metonymy) within the instructional activities and in relation to the student's behaviors. At the beginning of a new instructional sequence, a figurative turn allows the teacher to test and monitor the level of student's knowledge, while the student orients to a need to demonstrate that knowledge. Figurative turns also enable the teacher to initiate correction in complex movement sequences, its organization as a series of metaphors or metonymies enabling an easy return to an earlier point in a sequence. Furthermore, the flexibility of metaphors and metonymies as interactional resources is evidenced by the ease by which a figurative instruction turn may be transformed into an affirmative evaluation of student conduct. The paper thus suggests that instructing body knowledge through metaphors and metonymies has significant pedagogical advantages, also providing a detailed account for why and how this is the case.Peer reviewe

Prosodic salience and the emergence of new decisions : On the prosody of approval in Finnish workplace interaction

When participants, in joint decision-making, approve each other’s proposals, they typically make action-declarations (e.g., “yea, let’s take it”) and/or positive evaluations (e.g., “yea, this is good”). This paper focuses on the prosodic features of such ‘approval-turns’. Drawing on video-recordings of Finnish workplace interactions, I consider the interactional import of three different prosodic patterns. Approval-turns that are delivered with a (1) dynamic prosody (increased loudness, excessive pitch movement, etc.) establish new decisions, no matter whether the turns are action-declarations or positive evaluations. In contrast, approval-turns with a (2) flat prosody (decreased loudness, minimal pitch movement, etc.) do not—alone—suffice for new decisions to emerge. However, when speakers signal their approval with a (3) flat-stylized prosody (stylized figure, embedded in flat prosodic features), new decisions emerge just like with dynamic approval-turns. I argue that the similarity of the sequential consequences of the dynamic and flat-stylized approval-turns is related to the fact that, in both cases, the speakers display a clear emotional stance toward the matter at hand—even while the “valences” of these stances differ from each other. The paper seeks to elucidate the impact of prosodic events in joint decision-making, and the role of emotion displays as an interactional resource.Peer reviewe

Managing compliance in violin instruction: The case of the Finnish clitic particles -pA and -pAs in imperatives and hortatives

Peer reviewe

Experience sharing, emotional reciprocity, and turn-taking

In this perspective article, we consider the relationship between experience sharing and turn-taking. There is much evidence suggesting that human social interaction is permeated by two temporal organizations: (1) the sequential framework of turn-taking and (2) the concurrent framework of emotional reciprocity. From this perspective, we introduce two alternative hypotheses about how the relationship between experience sharing and turn-taking could be viewed. According to the first hypothesis, the home environment of experience sharing is in the concurrent framework of emotional reciprocity, while the motivation to share experiences is in tension with the sequential framework of turn-taking. According to the second hypothesis, people's inclination to coordinate their actions in terms of turn-taking is motivated precisely by their propensity to share experiences. We consider theoretical and empirical ideas in favor of both of these hypotheses and discuss their implications for future research.Peer reviewe

Ihmismielen haasteesta yhteiskuntatieteellisessä tutkimuksessa

Ihmismielen sosiaalisuus / toimittaneet Antti Gronow & Tuukka Kaidesoja ; kirjoittajat: Antti Gronow [ja 12 muuta]. [Helsinki] : Gaudeamus, [2017] Tallinna : Printon Trükikoda ©2017

Establishing joint decisions in a dyad

This study analyzes joint decisions. Drawing on video-recorded planning meetings in a workplace context as data, and on conversation analysis as a method, I investigate what is needed for a proposal to get turned into a joint decision: how do people negotiate the outcome of the decision-making processes in terms of whether they indeed comprise new decisions and whether these decisions are really joint ones? This study identifies three essential components in arriving at joint decisions (access, agreement, commitment), and discusses two other possible outcomes of decision-making processes—non-decisions, and unilateral decisions—as being a direct result of the deployment of the same components. These observations help explain the exact mechanisms involved in approving and rejecting proposals in joint decision-making settings, as well as the ways in which people may negotiate their rights and obligations to participate in decision-making processes.Peer reviewe

Teoriaa vuorovaikutuksesta, kasvoista ja sosiaalisista suhteista

Kirja-arvio teoksesta: Robert B. Arundale (2020). Communicating and relating: Constituting face in everyday interacting. New York: Oxford University Press. 496 s. ISBN 9780190210199

Displays of uncertainty and proximal deontic claims : The case of proposal sequences

Joint planning consists of people making proposals for future actions and events, and others accepting or rejecting these proposals. While proposals convey their speakers’ judgments of some ideas as feasible, however, in anticipation of and in an attempt to pre-empt the recipients’ rejection of their proposals, the speakers may begin to express doubt with the feasibility of their proposals. It is such ‘‘post-proposal displays of uncertainty,’’ and their interactional corollaries, that this paper focuses on. Drawing on video-recorded planning meetings as data, and conversation analysis as a method, I describe three ways for the recipients to respond to post-proposal displays of uncertainty: the recipients may (1) overcome, (2) confirm, or (3) dispel their co-participants’ doubts. Even if the outcome of the proposal, in each case, is its abandonment, the analysis points out to important differences in how these response options treat the first speakers’ ‘‘proximal deontic claims’’ -- that is, their implicit assertions of rights to control the participants’ local interactional agenda. The paper concludes by discussing the idea of proximal deontics with reference to other related notions.Peer reviewe