Embodied withdrawal after overlap resolution

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragmaJournal of Pragmatics 46 (2013) 139--156

Embodied withdrawal after overlap resolution

Florence Oloff *

ICAR Research Lab (CNRS, University of Lyon), ENS de Lyon, 15, parvis René Decartes,BP 7000, 69342 Lyon cedex 07, France

Received 27 October 2011; received in revised form 16 June 2012; accepted 16 July 2012

Abstract

Dropping out of overlap is a frequent practice for overlap resolution (Schegloff, 2000; Jefferson, 2004) in interaction, as it re-establishes the ‘‘one-at-a-time’’ principle of the turn-taking system (Sacks et al., 1974). While it is appropriate to analyze the practiceof dropping out of overlap as a verbal and thus audible phenomenon, a close look at video data reveals that withdrawing from anaction trajectory is also an embodied practice. Based on a fine-grained multimodal analysis (C. Goodwin, 1981; Mondada, 2007a,b)of videotaped interactions in French, this paper illustrates how overlapped speakers organize the momentary suspension of theiraction trajectory in visible ways. Indeed, participants do not instantly withdraw from their action trajectory when they stop talking. Byusing bodily resources, they are able to display continuous monitoring of the availability of their co-participants and of the nextpossible slot for resuming their suspended action. I therefore suggest analyzing the drop out of overlap as the first step ofwithdrawal, as definitive, embodied withdrawal can occur later, or, in case of resumption, not at all. Consequently, my paperanalyzes withdrawal as a good example of strengthening the analytic concept of embodiment with regard to turn-taking practices ininteraction.© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Conversation analysis; Multimodal analysis; Overlapping talk; Overlap resolution; Drop out; Embodied withdrawal

1. Introduction

This paper focuses on the visible conduct of participants after their drop out of overlap. Within the theoretical frameworkof conversation analysis, drop out, i.e., when someone stops speaking in overlap, has been described as a basic practicefor overlap resolution (Sacks et al., 1974; Jefferson, 2004; Schegloff, 2000). Taking this description as starting point, thiscontribution aims to shed light on the complexity of this phenomenon. While dropping out does instantly end theproduction of an utterance in overlap, this does not mean that the participant who dropped out has simultaneouslywithdrawn from their action trajectory, i.e., the implementation of the action (Schegloff, 2007:7--9) the participant initiallyperformed through their speaking turn in order to pursue a specific type of response from their co-participant(s). In otherwords, although the participant stopped speaking, they may afterwards show through visible resources that they project acontinuation of their abandoned action in a next available slot. Through a sequential and multimodal analysis, I will showthat a participant's visible conduct is modified progressively after their drop out. Certain features, such as posture, facialexpression, gaze or gesture, may be held after drop out and modified, shifted, or retracted during the continuinginteraction. This progressive withdrawal may lead to a definitive withdrawal, meaning that the participant has ceased topursue their action trajectory at that moment and stopped projecting its continuation at a later point. The definitive

* Present address: University of Basel, Department of Linguistics and Literature, French Studies, Maiengasse 51, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.Tel.: +41 061 267 12 69; fax: +41 061 267 12 85.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0378-2166/$ -- see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.005

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.07.005

F. Oloff / Journal of Pragmatics 46 (2013) 139--156140

withdrawal can co-occur with the uptake of another sequence, i.e., responding to a co-participant's turn-at-talk within thesequence which continues after overlap resolution.1 Participants may also maintain some of the multimodal features oftheir speakership display after drop out: this standby display shows that they pursue their action trajectory beyond dropout, possibly leading to a later resumption of their abandoned turn. Participant conduct during and after overlap is not onlysensitive to the dynamic relevance of concurrent actions, but also to changes in the participation framework. Bymonitoring mutual availability for, and involvement in, the concurrent sequences, participants orient towards withdrawal orresumption on a moment-by-moment basis. Those preliminary observations contribute to the growing body of research onmultimodal turn-taking, and more specifically, multimodal overlap management.

1.1. Turn-taking and overlap in conversation analysis

The seminal paper on turn-taking by Sacks et al. (1974) emphasized the systematicity of speaker change in ordinaryinteraction and shed light on the basic procedures that participants use in order to minimize gaps and overlaps duringordinary conversation. Overlap, i.e., simultaneous talk of at least two speakers, shows that participants systematicallyorient towards the possible completion of ongoing turn-constructional units (TCU): its onset mostly occurs in the terminalposition of an ongoing turn, anticipates its end, or responds to hitches and perturbations in the overlapped turn(cf. Jefferson, 1973, 1983a, 1986; Drew, 2009). Thus, overlap is in general positioned with respect to transition relevanceplaces (TRP), i.e., moments where speaker-change can take place. The systematicity of overlapping talk is also revealedby the fact that participants generally aim for its quick resolution and thus for the re-establishment of the state of one-at-a-time (Jefferson, 2004). In cases where the resolution is not implemented by the shortness of the turn itself (e.g., in the caseof continuers: Schegloff, 1982), participants can negotiate the turn space with the help of recurrent procedures: they canincrease the volume and pitch of their voice, truncate and recycle words, accelerate or decelerate their speech, orlengthen sounds (French and Local, 1983; Jefferson, 2004; Schegloff, 2000). While both participants can adopt acompetitive format and make the overlapping talk persist, an extended fight for the floor is rather exceptional (Schegloff,2000). Often, at least one of the speakers in overlap drops out, i.e., suspends the production of their turn, whichimplements the immediate resolution of the overlap. Although it has been claimed that stopping speaking is a basicprocedure for resolving overlap (Jefferson, 2004), no detailed analysis has been dedicated to the phenomenon of dropout.

1.2. Drop out as overlap resolution

Although drop out is a practice intimately tied to overlapping talk and, more generally, to the management of turn-taking, the analytical literature in conversation analysis has up until now only provided a basic description (cf. Oloff, 2009).Drop out can occur in various sequential positions (Jefferson, 2004), i.e., the overlapping speaker can withdraw from theturn (excerpt 1), or the overlapped speaker may stop talking when another speaker comes in (excerpt 2). When twoparticipants simultaneously self-select, often one drops out while the other continues (excerpt 3). In some cases, bothparticipants may withdraw from the turn, regardless of the sequential position of their respective turn (first, next,simultaneous), which may also lead to series of multiple drop outs and restarts (excerpt 4).

(1) (Schegloff, 2000:23)1 2

Vic: Mike: ->

Be[cuz] I'm] deh en I'm gon'... [Did] ju-]

(2) (Jefferson, 2004:45)1 2

Essi e: -> Jane t:

I th ink Co oki e [ ta- [I didn' even know'e was i::l l.

(3) (Schegloff, 2000:23)1 2

Ava: Bee: ->

[°B't asi]de fr'm that it's a'right.[So what-]

1 Regarding the notion of ‘‘sequence’’, I refer to Schegloff's description: ‘‘Across all different kinds of actions which people do through talk, arethere any sorts of general patterns or structures which they use (and which we can describe) to co-produce and track an orderly stretch of talk andother conduct in which some course of action gets initiated, worked through, and brought to closure? If so, we will call them ‘sequences’, and wewill call their organization ‘sequence organization’.’’ (Schegloff, 2007:3). Whereas a sequence implies the involvement of at least two participants(typically, an action and a response to that action), I use the notion of ‘‘action trajectory’’ in order to refer to a sequence that has been initiated byone participant, but which has not yet been appropriately responded to by their co-participant(s).

F. Oloff / Journal of Pragmatics 46 (2013) 139--156 141

(4) (Jefferson, 2004:47)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Trac y: -> Lady : ->

Lady : -> Trac y: ->

Lady : -> Trac y: ->

Lady :

But [ha d- [Bu t (.) [[th is- [[hh Ha - (.) [[Ni :ne tee n se ]ve n]t y I, [[Ha dju fi nis hed ] ( )] (.) was: : h ad 'n inv ita tio n to , ( 0.3 ) B ucking 'm Pal ace ,

Contrary to what one might intuitively expect, it is not always the overlapping, incoming speaker who drops out ofoverlap, thus, this practice does not simply depend on the sequential position of overlap onset. It is not a mechanic, but alocally negotiated decision, as ‘‘(. . .) it is not always unequivocal for participants who shall drop out’’ (Jefferson, 2004:46).Although the negotiation of turn continuation or abandonment has been recognized as a practical task for participants,the literature confines itself to stating its existence, but does not comment on its detailed functioning. Schegloff(2000:23--24), for instance, notes that most overlaps are ended by the quick withdrawal of one or both participants, andthat extended simultaneous talk is resolved when one participant adopts a competitive format, making the other speakerdrop out.

As the first examples have shown, drop out typically implies the cut-off of an emergent turn before it reaches a point ofpossible syntactic or pragmatic completion. At the phonetic level, this cut-off may be implemented by a glottal or dentalstop (Schegloff, 2000; Jasperson, 2002). Although the cut-off seems to be a prototypical way of dropping out, otherformats should be considered, as both incompleteness and completeness of a TCU or a turn-at-talk are practicalaccomplishments in interaction (Chevalier, 2008; Chevalier and Clift, 2008; Ford and Thompson, 1996; Ford, 2004;Mondada, 2007a). Excerpt 4 shows that a turn abandoned in overlap can be reinitialized at a possible next slot, as bothTracy and Lady self-select again at the next TRP (l. 4--5, 7--8), and as Tracy is recycling one of the overlapped items(‘‘had-’’, ‘‘ha-’’, ‘‘hadju’’, l. 1, 5, 8). This demonstrates that stopping speaking does not automatically imply the completeabandonment of the action trajectory (here, a possible request addressed to Lady). Instead, participants may pursue theiraction trajectory despite overlapping talk and even if they repeatedly drop out. Thus, a distinction should be made betweena drop out -- stopping speaking at a precise point in time -- and an abandonment of the action trajectory in which theparticipant who drops out is involved, which may be subject to a different temporality.

If we consider the actions carried out or at least projected in the overlapping turns of examples 1--3, the participantswho drop out seem to introduce a new sequence (excerpt 1, l. 2, excerpt 2, l. 1, excerpt 3, l. 2), while the co-participantturns seem to continue a previous sequence (clearly visible in the use of the pronoun ‘‘he’’ in excerpt 2, l. 2, indicating thatthe referent has been introduced earlier). Participants thus orient less towards a simple mechanism of speaking rights(‘‘first starter goes’’, Schegloff, 2000:44), but rather to the local relevance of the involved action trajectories. However,the last excerpt (excerpt 4) shows that drop out is not a simple matter of ‘‘new’’ vs. ‘‘old’’ sequence either, as only one ofthe two newly initiated sequences is continued after the negotiation (l. 10). In the case of repair sequences, a ‘‘new’’action can indeed suspend the ongoing sequence (Sacks et al., 1974:720), showing that the participant who responds tothe repair initiation orients to the currently stronger relevance of achieving mutual understanding. While the examples upto now (excerpts 1--4) show overlaps that involve two speakers, one might wonder how participants manage overlap andnegotiate drop out in settings with more than two participants. Schegloff (2000:8) accounts for specific overlapconstellations with three participants and the possible role of gaze direction for causing a speaker in overlap to drop outor continue, although he does not develop his observations and focuses on the audible features of overlap resolution.Considering the growing body of multimodal analysis of video data, it seems promising to take a look at participantinvolvement within stretches of (overlapping) talk (i.e., participation, M.H. Goodwin, 1997; C. Goodwin and M.H.Goodwin, 2004) and their embodied availability displays (C. Goodwin, 2000) in order to better understand thisphenomenon.

1.3. Multimodal analysis of overlap resolution

On the one hand, conversation analysis has provided a first systematic description of overlap and phenomenaconnected to it, on the other hand, those observations have been generally made on the basis of audio data. At first sight,as overlap is an audible phenomenon, the use of video data for its analysis seems to be less relevant. But just as a growingnumber of studies insist on the relevance of visible resources for turn-taking, video analysis can also deepen ourunderstanding of overlap (Mondada and Oloff, 2011). Since C. Goodwin (1979, 1980, 1981) pioneered the use ofinteractional video data by showing how turn formats are linked to recipient design and depend on availability displays ofpotential recipients, more and more researchers have started to investigate the interplay of visible resources and speakingturns. Participants may project an upcoming turn by handling objects, pointing gestures, or by modifying their posture or


facial expression (Mondada, 2007b; Schmitt, 2005; Streeck and Hartge, 1992), which may at the same time influence thedevelopment and format of a co-participant's ongoing turn. Orientation shifts or certain types of gesture may select thenext potential speaker(s) before the end of the turn (Bohle, 2007; Streeck, 2007). Gestures can replace (Schegloff, 1984)and complete a turn (Olsher, 2004), while held gestures may increase participation (De Stefani, 2007). One majoroutcome of this type of research is that TCUs and actions are not a priori restricted to speaking and limited to the audibleboundaries of a speaking turn: participants visibly prepare a turn before starting to speak, or they can complete aspeaking turn in embodied ways (Mondada, 2007b). This also means that participative status in interaction cannot berestricted to speaking (‘‘current speaker’’) or not (‘‘recipient’’), but that participants may visibly display that they are‘‘incipient speakers’’ or ‘‘possible next speakers’’, or that they treat their co-participants as ‘‘incipient/possiblerecipients’’, etc.

As a consequence, one might wonder whether dropping out of overlap signifies that participants have completelyabandoned the action they were pursuing through talk. Participants may indeed tie their turns and TCUs to each otherbeyond self-insertions or talk by co-participants by means of frozen or held gestures (Laursen, 2007). Participants whoyield the floor to an overlapping co-participant can hold a gesture in order ‘‘[. . .] to show that they consider their turn still inprogress and intend to resume after the interruption’’ (Schegloff, 1984:171). Although it should be emphasized thatdropping out does not imply that the participant has been interrupted (for the conversation analytical treatment of the term‘‘interruption’’, see Schegloff, 1988/1989, 2002), this illustrates that participants may project a continuation of their turn at alater stage even if they stop talking in overlap.2 The drop out concerns a precise moment in the overlapping talk (itsresolution), but this does not mean that the participant who stops talking displays the abrupt end of their action trajectory atprecisely the same instant (see also Goodwin's analysis of a case where co-participant byplay leads to a suspension of astorytelling, ‘‘[a] visual inspection of speaker's posture display[ing] her progressive loss of the floor’’, M.H. Goodwin,1997:84--85).

A participant may transform an embodied display of speakership before or simultaneously with dropping out, but alsoafter drop out. Thus, the temporality of the embodied abandonment could be quite different from the temporality of theunfinished turn: it could possibly start before the drop out occurs, or could end well after the participant has stoppedtalking. While drop out should clearly be understood as an audible phenomenon that occurs at a precise point in time, thepractice of withdrawing might be a more complex, embodied phenomenon that is being progressively displayed in time bythe participant who dropped out. In order to contribute to a more detailed description of the embodied nature of withdrawalafter overlap resolution, in the following section I suggest analyzing some instances of stopping speaking (i.e., drop out)and stopping to project a later continuation of an action (i.e., embodied withdrawal) in naturally occurring multi-partyinteraction in French by means of a sequential and multimodal analysis.

2. Analysis: withdrawal from an action trajectory

The analytical part of this paper will illustrate the bodily conduct of participants during overlap, at the moment ofdropping out, and after overlap resolution. This section aims to investigate how visible resources like gesture, gaze, facialexpression, or posture can display the progressive abandonment of an action trajectory. The excerpts stem from variousdata sets of videotaped French natural interactions provided by the ICAR Research Lab, Lyon.3 The corpus ‘‘ParisMontmartre’’ (‘‘PM’’ in the excerpt code) shows a dinner conversation between three students in Paris; the corpus ‘‘Saxe’’is an informal work meeting at home between three colleagues of a marketing start-up company; and finally, in the corpus‘‘Mosaic’’, a working session between three architects concerning the conception of a luxury hotel has been videotaped.As different excerpts from this data will show, participants do not immediately display a recipient posture after drop out, butmodify progressively the resources used to display their status as current speaker after overlap resolution. Furthermore,they may maintain at least one visible feature clearly beyond their drop out, orienting to a possible resumption of theiraction trajectory at a future TRP.

2 Schegloff (2000) relates the notion of ‘‘claim to the turn space’’ to the competitive audible format of speaking turns during simultaneous talk,but not explicitly to bodily displays eventually occurring after overlap resolution. As claiming the turn space by adopting an audible competitiveformat while speaking in overlap (Schegloff, 2000) and claiming it through a visual display after overlap resolution represent at least different typesof ‘‘turn claiming’’, I prefer restricting the notion of ‘‘claim to the turn space’’ to overlapping speaking turns. Participant embodied displays afteroverlap resolution could, at this analytical stage, be more cautiously described in terms of ‘‘standby’’, which means that participants project a latercontinuation of their talk or pursue their action trajectory.

3 The data was videotaped by L. Balthasar and Lorenza Mondada (corpora ‘‘Saxe’’, ‘‘Paris Montmartre’’) and by M. Baker, S. Bruxelles, F.Darses, F. Détienne, K. Lund, L. Mondada, A. Séjourne, V. Traverso, W. Visser (corpus ‘‘Mosaic’’). They are partly accessible in the CLAPI database of interactional data (http://clapi.univ-lyon2.fr/).

http://clapi.univ-lyon2.fr/


In order to substantiate those claims, we will at first look at Yves’ drop out in excerpt 5 (l. 5). During dinner, the threeparticipants are discussing musical and dancing scenes in movies. Preceding the excerpt, Yves has just stated that hedoes not like the usual clear cuts that separate scenes with and without dancing and singing.

(5) (PM_025145)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

VIC

yve NAD

yve

nad NAD

YVE

nad yve

fig NAD

VIC

nad NAD

yve fig VIC

NAD

VIC

+.H:/ well+it's difficult [you have to: because IT's:: er& [tu veux xxX: les deux °quoi\°] [you want to xxX: both °(yeah)°] +.........+gaze NAD---------------------------------------->> &>>là au bout d'<<] 'fin: ça *doit +être &>>there after-<< ] well it *must +be >-mouth closed----------------------+..opens mouth----> +..lifts eyebrows-> >((gaze covered by Vic's arm))*eyes closed--> (.) [+* hYpe#r * dif*+#]fi +cile/ +parce * que #& (.) [+* rEAll#y * dif*+#]fi +cult + be *cause #& [+* >>mais j#e trou*ve-<<*+#] [+* >>but #i thi*nk-<<*+#] >----*..gaze mid-dist-*.....*gaze YVE---------*..mid-dist.-> >----+speaks, moves mouth---+mouth remains open--->l.8 +..moves head fwd------------+,,,retracts head>---lifted eyebrows---------------------+,,,eyebrows lowered->> #1 #2 #3 &.H:[: l*A MUsique m]ine de rIEN/ c’est: c’est: c- est fatigAnt& &.H:[:(th*e) MUsic n]everthelEss it's: it's: i- t's tIring& [à m*imer/ ouais\] [to m*ime yeah] >--------*..gaze VIC-> &entre guillem+ets/ de de:#(0.2) suivre une histoire sur euh::\ .H: &at least kind+of to to:#(0.2) follow a story for er:: .H: >--mouth open-+...closes mouth---------------------------------->> #4 °une heure [et d'mie/°] °one hour [and a half°] [sur: euh:]:\ une heure et [d’mie:/ .H:] [for: er:]: one hour and [a half: .H:] [à moins qu’elle soit] [unless it is]

vraiment associée °à:° really associated °with:°

1 NAD +.H: / ' fin+c'e st diff ici le/ [il fa ut:\ pa rce que c' EST ::/ eh\ &

The excerpt starts with a turn by Nadine (NAD), in which she adopts a negative stance towards Yves’ (YVE) previousutterance (briefly overlapped by Victor's answer to Yves, l. 1--2). The syntactic breaks show that Nadine has somedifficulties in stating her assessment ‘‘c’est difficile’’/‘‘it's difficult’’ (l. 1) more precisely. Yves, who looks at her from thebeginning of her turn (l. 1), anticipates the next TRP, the adjective projected by ‘‘ça doit être’’/‘‘it must be’’ (l. 3): he starts toopen his mouth and to lift his eyebrows (end of line 3), then self-selects a micro-pause later with an accelerated turn-beginning (l. 5), projecting a possible strengthening of his own position (‘‘mais je trouve-’’/‘‘but I think-’’). But instead ofending her turn with the projected adjective ‘‘difficile’’/‘‘difficult’’, Nadine continues in a different way: she upgrades theadjective by inserting ‘‘hyper’’/‘‘really’’ beforehand (l. 4). After having closed her eyes (l. 3), Nadine first looks into themiddle-distance, then starts to gaze at Yves during overlap (l. 4, compare Figs. 1 and 2), thus directly addressing him. Assoon as mutual gaze is established, Yves drops out of overlap and yields the floor to Nadine, who then develops herstance in a complex turn (l. 4, 6, 8). As we can see in Figs. 1 and 2 (l. 4--5), Yves changes neither the direction of his gaze(in Fig. 1, his eyes are closed due to blinking), nor his posture in a significant way, and his hands are not gesturing in a

Figs. 1 and 2.


Figs. 3 and 4.

specific way before, during, or after the overlap. It thus seems that he simply stops speaking and assumes recipientshipafter the overlap resolution.

A closer observation of Yves’ post-overlap conduct nevertheless reveals that the abandonment appears to be moreprogressive. During his self-selection (l. 5), he has moved his head slightly forward and upwards (Fig. 1). This headposition is held one syllable after his drop out (on the third syllable of the word ‘‘difficult’’, ‘‘-cile’’/‘‘-cult’’, l. 4, he slightlyretracts his head). Yves’ eyebrows remain lifted for one more syllable, as he lowers them only when Nadine pronouncesthe connector ‘‘parce que’’/‘‘because’’ (l. 4, Fig. 3). Interestingly, Yves keeps his mouth open after having dropped out ofoverlap, i.e., his lips are still spread after he has stopped speaking (Fig. 3, l. 4--5). He holds the relaxed position of his lipsduring the further development of Nadine's turn (until l. 8, cf. Fig. 4).

Yves’ bodily display in this excerpt could be considered rather minimal. This nevertheless points out that even if aparticipant stops talking and thus resolves overlap, withdrawal from the action trajectory (which has been initiated throughthe abandoned turn and not yet been responded to by the co-participant) is implemented progressively. Certain embodieddisplays are progressively modified after the overlap resolution: the position of Yves’ head and eyebrows indeed changesduring Nadine's talk after his drop out. Consequently, dropping out of the turn represents the first step of Yves’ progressivewithdrawal from his action trajectory. While stopping speaking yields the turn to the co-participant at that moment, theparticipant who dropped out may show that they seek the next possible slot for resuming their abandoned turn: Yvesmaintains his gaze constant towards Nadine, which not only displays recipiency (C. Goodwin, 1981), but also enables himto closely monitor (M.H. Goodwin, 1980; Schmitt and Deppermann, 2007) a possible embodied projection of her turn'send. Moreover, Yves keeps his mouth open for a long stretch of Nadine's talk, thus displaying his incipient speakership.Indeed, there could be a next possible slot for the resumption of Yves’ turn after ‘‘c’est fatigant’’/‘‘it's tiring’’ (l. 6), thesubordinate clause introduced by ‘‘parce que’’/‘‘because’’ (l. 4) being possibly complete at that point (‘‘because music istiring nevertheless’’). But by adding ‘‘entre guillemets’’/‘‘kind of’’ (l. 8), Nadine projects a further development of her turn.Interestingly, Yves closes his mouth at that moment, as the next possible slot for his unfinished utterance did not occur atthis point.

In this example, the withdrawal occurs progressively: after drop out, Yves first slightly retracts his head, then lowers hiseyebrows (l. 5). However, the maintenance of one embodied feature -- keeping his mouth open -- after overlap resolutionshows that Yves is on ‘‘standby’’, which means that he is projecting a possible resumption of his turn at a future TRP. Yvesattentively monitors the development of Nadine's complex utterance in order to possibly resume his abandoned utterance.But when Nadine continues her turn yet again beyond a possible TRP, Yves closes his mouth, thus definitely abandoningthe pursuit of his action trajectory at that point. Thus, Yves’ definitive withdrawal occurs only when he clearly withdrawsfrom his standby modus by closing his mouth. These different practices -- drop out, standby, progressive withdrawal, anddefinitive withdrawal -- will be illustrated in more detail in the following analyses.

2.1. Progressive and definitive withdrawal after drop out: responding to a co-participant

In this section, I will substantiate the claim that embodied withdrawal is made progressively, i.e., that different featuresof the embodied conduct can be kept up beyond the drop out, then be progressively modified or retracted, leading to adefinitive withdrawal. This may occur in different overlapping constellations (Schegloff, 2000:8): when participants inoverlap address each other (excerpt 6), when both address a different recipient (a speaker A addressing a speaker B whois simultaneously talking to a speaker C, excerpt 7), or when they address the same recipient (example not provided dueto space limitations). Despite these various participation frameworks, the analysis will show that the definitive withdrawal


in these examples is precisely timed with the uptake of a competitive action trajectory, as after definitive withdrawal, theparticipant responds to a co-participant's action.

In the following excerpt, three colleagues from a marketing start-up company are discussing a problem concerningtheir acquaintance Jean, who worked in a freelance capacity on one of their projects without signing a confidentialitycontract. Jean will now possibly try to sell the marketing idea developed in the framework of this project to a competitivemarketing agency. After having discussed this problem for several minutes, Fabien (FAB), Sophie (SOP) and Charles(CHA) now consider different problems that may ensue for their enterprise from this situation and discuss possiblesolutions. Fabien has just underlined that the reputation of their business might suffer from Jean's acting, as hisprofessional affiliation will not be clear to the potential client (l. 1, 3).

(6) (SAXE_010223)

3

4 5

6

7

8 9

10

11

12

13

14 15

FAB

SOP CHA

cha fab

CHA

cha

fig

FAB ->

CHA ->

cha fab sop fig

sop

fab FAB ->

fig

FAB

cha

[<HCHR: ((clears throat))> .h][>>yeah but that's why<<] &£une ag[en£ce:/][(où: >>mais) vous ê][£+tes °où là:\°<< £] &£an ag[en£cy: ][(where>>but) where a][£+re °you (now)°<< £] [°.ha::°] [.th:] [£+>>NON mAIs-\ j` £]& [.th:] [£+>>NO bUT- i £]& >,,,retracts hands to his lap-----------+....RH gestures---> £.gaze CHA£...gaze SOP-----------------£...gaze CHA------>> >>RH gestures--------------------------------------------£,, &pense effectivement nous/ l’intérêt °est<< clair/ mais c’est° &think indeed to us the significance °is<< clear but it's° +jean# +jean#+..gaze FAB--> +,,,,RH on lap---> #5 (0.2) £>>ouAIS [nOn £mAIs\<<#][+£.h: +][°f:aut¿-° #] £>>yeEAH [nO £bUT<< #][+£.h: +][°(we) must¿-° #] [(il est£:) #][+£il y a +][>>des mots #] à& [(he i£:s) #][+£there is +][>>something #] to& >gaze FAB-------------------+.........+gaze SOP--------->l.15 £...RH...........£pointing--£-index finger circular mov.>l.12 >gaze CHA------------------------------------------------>> #6 #7ab &*dire à*jean<< &*be said to*jean<< *°nods°-----* (0.2)£(0.1) >----£,,,retracts RH to head-->> °ouais°# °yeah° #

#8 (0.4) mais déjà:::/ lui\ (.) lui +lui dire notre intérêt déjà& but already::: tell(.) tell+tell him about our interests& >gaze SOP------------------+...gaze FAB->>

1

2

FAB

JEB

&[>>°en disant mais attends/°<<][vous bossez ] a vec & &[>>°(they're like) but wait°<<][you're working] w ith & [< HCH R: ((cl ear s th roa t)) > .h][ >>o uais ma is c'es t p our ça< <]

In this excerpt, Charles and Fabien take a different view on the problem with Jean, and thus each participantpursues an aligning response to his respective point of view from the other. In overlap with Fabien's turn ending,Charles self-selects and states that the negative repercussions for their own agency are indeed quite clear, but thatthe main problem is Jean (l. 5--7, a turn he already tried to initiate at a prior TRP, cf. l. 2). At the end of his turn, Charlesstarts to look at Fabien and retracts his hands, by then gesturing, to a home position (Sacks and Scheglof, 2002) onhis lap (l. 7, Fig. 5). In the next turn slot, Fabien could respond and align with Charles’ point of view. Fabien indeedorients towards this as a TRP and starts to speak after a short pause (l. 9), but Charles continues his previousutterance in overlap with Fabien (l. 10), more explicitly saying that they should talk to Jean in order to prevent him fromselling their idea. While Charles continues his turn, Fabien drops out well before a possible syntactic or pragmaticcompletion. Nevertheless, his withdrawal is merely progressive until he definitively abandons his action trajectoryinitiated in line 9, finally responding to Charles. Indeed, both Charles and Fabien emphasize a different part of theirproblem with Jean to be taken into consideration: while Fabien insists on informing Jean about what is at stake fortheir enterprise, Charles underlines that to them, ‘‘the significance is clear’’ (l. 6), and that Jean has instead to beconvinced to work along their lines (an argument he had already previously mentioned, not cited in the excerpt). Thispossible misalignment is also underlined by the use of ‘‘yeah but’’ (l. 2) ‘‘no but’’ (l. 5) and ‘‘yeah no but’’ (l. 9) at theirrespective turn beginnings (cf. Steensig and Asmuß, 2005).

Before and directly after overlap onset, Charles and Fabien are engaged in mutual gaze (l. 9--10, Figs. 5 and 6), clearlyaddressing each other. But soon after his turn-beginning, Charles shifts his gaze to Sophie (‘‘(il est:)’’/‘‘(he i:s)’’), whichshows that he is no longer receptive to Fabien's turn, and thus underlines a possible misalignment with this co-participant.


Figs. 5 and 6.

Charles’ shift of recipient is precisely positioned at the moment where the possibly misaligned nature of Fabien's turn-beginning emerges. There is no prosodical break between Fabien's ‘‘ouais’’/‘‘yeah’’ -- which provides a minimal alignmentfor all practical purposes (cf. Jefferson, 1983b) -- and the following ‘‘non mais’’/‘‘no but’’, which projects a misaligned turn ina sequential first position, not in a second, responsive position. Shortly after this shift of recipient, Fabien drops out of theturn audibly (cf. the glottal stop on ‘‘faut

?

-’’/‘‘(we) must

?

-’’, l. 9), as his recipient Charles is not available any more (Fig. 7aand b; Oloff, 2012). Nevertheless, as the maintenance of Fabien's pointing gesture beyond his drop out shows, hisdefinitive withdrawal occurs later. During his turn-beginning, Fabien begins to point with his right index finger in Charles’direction (l. 9--10, Fig. 6), which on his next inbreath (l. 9) is transformed into a circular pointing movement slightly to theright. Fig. 7a and b (l. 9--10) shows that at the moment of drop out, Fabien has not yet retracted his pointing finger.

Fabien retracts his pointing right hand only during the pause following the end of Charles’ turn (l. 11--12). As Charles didnot return his gaze to Fabien at that moment, and as his previous utterance again makes relevant an answer from Fabien,Fabien definitively withdraws from his own action trajectory at this moment: his right hand now supports his head, thusdisplaying a recipient posture, which also finds expression in his minimal answer to Charles (l. 13, Fig. 8). Nevertheless,Fabien aligns only minimally with Charles’ point of view: on the one hand, the ‘‘yeah’’ in l. 13 is pronounced at a low volumeand with a flat intonation contour, on the other hand, his new self-selection in line 15 again makes relevant an aligningresponse from Charles.

Figs. 7 and 8.

While in example 6, Fabien's drop out was linked to the continuation of the previous utterance and the display ofunavailability from his recipient Charles, in the next excerpt the drop out is linked to the initiation of a repair sequence byanother co-participant. While Sophie is criticizing a transition between two sections in a PowerPoint presentation done byFabien, Charles self-selects in overlap (l. 8--9). Sophie progressively withdraws and orients towards the relevance ofCharles’ repair initiation.

(7) (SAXE_003413)


3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

FAB

sop CHA

SOP

sop

FAB

SOP ->

CHA ->

sop

fig SOP ->

CHA

sop fig

[*°ah oui \°] [*°oh yes ° ] >---* ...g aze CHA-- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --* ,, ah ou ais/ oh ye ah/ *pis tu pas ses dir ect eme nt à e xem ple *then you go str aig ht on t o e xam ple *...g aze FAB --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --> (0.2) [#ah] [#oh] [#.h*]: [ dON c#] [#.h*]: [ sO #] [ à e#]*xem ple [ to e#]*xam ple >---* .mid -di st. *..g aze CH A--> > * .... ..p alm s al ter nat e->l .10 #9 #1 0 #°ts. ° *(. )eu h::*ave c u ne fich e/#euh ::*::\ tu*sais / des[ prof ils]* #°ts. ° *(. )er :: *wit h a form #er::*:: you*kn ow o f the[p rofi les ]*

[Ah:/ ]* [Oh: ]*

>---- *... ... ..* hand s d raw "f orm "-- --*, ,,, ,,* ...b eat --- ---- --* ,, #11 # 12 (0.2)

1

2

SOP ->

cha sop SOP

[+tu] sai s/ exe mple là \ qua nd t`a s mi s:/ eu h\& [+you ] kn ow exa mpl e th ere whe re you 've put : er& +sta nds in fro nt o f t he tabl e-- --- ---- --- --- ->> >>gaz e FA B-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --> &FI[*N-/° euh -°] fin du :\ d` l a p rop osit ion fa mili a/ *&EN[*D- °er ° ] end of : of t he f amil ia offe r *

While Sophie tries to explain to Fabien which point in his presentation to a prospective customer, the enterprise‘‘Familia’’, her critique concerns (the transition between the section ‘‘end of the familia offer’’, l. 2, and the section‘‘example’’, l. 5), they are both engaged in mutual gaze. Charles, who has just returned from the kitchen, is standing infront of the table (l. 1--3, Fig. 9). Sophie briefly gazes at Charles (l. 2), who accepts her turn with a minimal interrogativeacknowledgment (l. 4). Sophie then turns her head back to Fabien and pursues her explanation (l. 5). As Fabienproduces the French change-of-state token ‘‘ah’’ (Heritage, 1984), Sophie starts a new turn (l. 7--8), shifting her gaze tomid-distance (Fig. 10). While she inhales, her hands start to move alternately back and forth (Fig. 10), probablyrepresenting the transition between the two PowerPoint slides she is referring to (just before the excerpt starts, Sophiehas stated that Fabien ‘‘should have put another slide’’ between the two sections).

When Charles self-selects and points to the trouble source ‘‘exemple’’/‘‘example’’ (l. 9), Sophie immediately stopsspeaking (after ‘‘donc’’/‘‘so’’, l. 8). She then turns her head in Charles’ direction and engages in mutual gaze shortlyafterwards (l. 10, Fig. 11). Nevertheless, her hands still carry out the same back and forth movement (Fig. 11), whichshows that at that moment her action trajectory is still being pursued despite her having dropped out.

The definitive withdrawal occurs in the micro pause following her short tongue click (l. 10): Sophie stops the back andforth movement of her hands and shifts to a type of iconic gesture, where both index fingers vertically draw a kind of‘‘fiche’’/‘‘form’’ (l. 10, Fig. 12). This new gesture accompanies her answer to Charles’ question, which he acknowledges bya change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984, l. 11).

Despite the speed of the drop out of overlap (leaving the emergent turns visibly incomplete), the last two exampleshave shown that stopping talking does not imply the immediate abandonment of the action trajectory that had beeninitiated and projected by the now abandoned turn. Multimodal features of the embodied speakership (such as pointing or

Figs. 9 and 10.


Figs. 11 and 12.

iconic gestures, gaze or positions of the hand) are clearly modified after drop out, corresponding to a progressivewithdrawal. The moment of definitive withdrawal corresponds to the instance when those postures or gestures have beencompletely modified or retracted. Here, the definitive withdrawal coincides with a response to the overlapping co-participant, whether it is a response to an extended previous turn (excerpt 6, l. 10), to a repair initiation (excerpt 7, l. 9),or to another type of co-participant action. In the preceding excerpts, the concurrent sequence initiated by theparticipant who continues in overlap sets up the relevance of a response from the participant who dropped out. Thisrelevance to respond can be more (responding to repair initiation, excerpt 7, l. 10) or less strong (aligning with a co-participant's position, excerpt 6, l. 13), leading the participant addressed more or less quickly to a definitive withdrawalat that moment.

2.2. Standby after drop out: monitoring the ongoing sequence for a new slot

Even if the definitive withdrawal may in numerous cases be linked to a sequential reorientation of the participant whodropped out, not every case of embodied definitive withdrawal co-occurs with the uptake of a former or competitive actiontrajectory. A participant may definitively withdraw without responding to their co-participant's turn immediately afterwards(cf. the previous analysis of excerpt 5, where Yves does not respond to his co-participant's turn after his definitivewithdrawal). This means that the outdroppers’ waiting for a new slot so as to eventually resume their talk is not onlysensitive to the relevance of a response set up by the co-participant's concurrent turn, but also to its length. If the participantwho continues a turn after overlap resolution extends that turn beyond one or several TRP(s), the possibility of attaining asubsequent slot for resuming the abandoned turn is gradually diminished. This may make participants withdraw definitivelyfrom their action trajectory, even if they decide not to participate in the concurrent sequence at that moment.

The following, more complex case will show that after drop out, participants not only monitor the structure of theirformer competitors’ emerging turn, but also the availability displays of their recipient(s) (cf. Oloff, 2012). Here, Sophiesuspends her turn after having been overlapped by Fabien, and maintains a display of standby during several followingturns.

(8) (SAXE_010736)1

2

sop fab fig SOP ->

*(1.6)#(0.3) *..gaze table--> >>gaze brochure, flicks through->l.5 #13 .H:: *>>bEn *AlORS/<< la bonne nouvelle *dans l'affaire:/ c'est .H: *>>wEll* SO<< the good news *of this sto:ry is

3

4

5

sop

cha sop

fig SOP ->

FAB ->cha fab

>-- --* ..ga ze bro chur e F AB- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- -> >>h and s ta ble *.. .... ... ... lift s f ore arms *-- --- ---- --- --- ---- -> que \ ( 0.3) MI AM*::/ (0. 3)+¿ch a*pe aut e/ l es ma° rque s:\ °#*& tha t ( 0.3) MI AM*:: (0. 3)+ ¿d i*re cts t he b ran° ds: °#*& >>- -ga ze n ote s-- ---- --- --+ ...g aze SO P--- --- --- ---- --- --- > >-- -ga ze b roc hur e FA B-- --- ---- *.. ..g aze CHA --- ---- --- >l. 8 >-- --- ---- --- --* .... .mo ves & f old s h ands ... ... .... ... *-- > #14 &(0 .4) .sh :[£: ç]A veu t [#di re ]£+que:€:€ \+&(0 .4) .sh :[£: t h]Is do es [#me an ]£+that:€: €+ [£oui \] [#°° et €e ¿€°° ]£+ [£yes ] [#°° and €e r¿€° °]£+>-- gaz e SO P-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- +.. ... .+br och .-> l.8 £ ... .... .he ad twd CHA ... .... £-- --- --->


6

7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 17

18

fig

fab SOP -> FAB ->

cha sop

fab fig SOP

sop

fab CHA

FAB

sop fab fig

CHA

sop

fab cha

fig CHA

cha fig FAB

sop cha fig

SOP

sop

sop fig

>-- --f lick s t hro ugh bro chu re-- --- --- ---- £.. .tu rns las t p age- -> #15 £(0 .2) £le ts go l ast pa ge & gr abs bro chu re- -> [#*°(o u):¿ °] [#*°et ° es t-c e]£que*l:u i:/£°le ::\ °(. )#°p ard on\ j`t e*£cou pe/ °+= [#*°and ° do]£es * h:e: £°th e::°( .)#°s orry i'm c uttin g*£yo u short°+= >-- -ga ze b roc hur e--- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- --+, ,, *. .ga ze b roc hur e-*. .ga ze FAB- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- *.. bro ch.- > >-- han ds f old ed in f ron t o f fa ce- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- > >-- --- ---- --- -£r epos iti ons £... pus hes bro chu re to t he lef t£,, , #1 6 #17 =*£vas /*y: \ * =*£go *ah ead *>*. ... .... ... .*t ouch es nos e--> >-- --- -*.. gaz e F AB-> £l ook s at ot her doc ume nts on the ta ble- > oua is: / yea h: #es t-c e£qu e*::/ (.) >>° dan s l` co mit é- ( ah) vo ilà\ ° *comit é # do e£s *:: (.) >>°in the commi ttee- (oh) ther e it is° *steer ing >-- FAB ---- -*. ..g aze bro chu re-- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- -*. .FAB -> >-- --- -£.. .gr abs new br och ure and pu ts i t i n f ront of hi m--- -> #18 d`*dir ecti on/ <<£est- ce*que no t*re#+ami: /+eu h\*ga*r[de t:/+là\ ] *com mitt ee< < £ do*es o u*r #+frien d+er *ga*r[de t:+ther e] [ou ais /+on a [ yea h+we ha ve >-* ..g aze bro chu re-- --- --- ---- *.. FAB ---- --- --* ..ga ze bro ch.- >> >-* unf olds ha nds .... ..* ret ouch es nos e--- --- --- --*, ,,, >-- --- ---- --- --£ ---h and les & l ook s a t ne w b roc hure --- --- ---- >> >-g aze in fro nt- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- +.. .ga ze b roc hur e--- > +.. RH r eac hes out fo r p en+. .> #19 l 'or] gan i+gramm e\#= the or] g +chart #= .po int s to br och .+,, ,,, # 20 =.h :*euh:: :*€::€+ (. )#diri ge l a dir+ect ion du mar ket ing =.h :* er:: :*€::€+ (. )# lead t he mar+ket ing de part men t *. .... .*l owe rs h ead & touc hes ha nds- --- --- ---- ----->

>-g aze bro chu re- +... gaz e S OP-- --- --- +,,, ,, #2 1 (0. 4) il*est - (0 .4) j` sa*is pas / i l é tai t *dire cte ur c ommerc ial he*is- (0 .4) i do*n't kn ow h e w as *sale s m anag er >-* ..g aze FAB --- ---* ... gaz e br och ure ---- --- --- ---- --- --- >> >he ad lowe red , h ands in fr ont of mou th*. ..l ean s fo rwa rd- -> *#il m 'a d it\ & *#he t old me& *-- lea ned fwd tw d FA B, han ds o n t abl e->> #22

Two minutes before the beginning of the excerpt, Charles has shown a brochure to Sophie and commented on theinformation it contains. During this long explanation sequence, Fabien has pulled the brochure to his side and flickedthrough it attentively. When Charles and Sophie stop talking, he is still reading (l. 1). Shortly afterwards, Sophie initiates anew sequence (l. 2). During the beginning of her turn, she lifts both forearms (which have been extended on the tableduring the preceding sequence, Fig. 13), thus changing from a recipient to a speaker posture (l. 2--3, cf. Fig. 14).

While formulating her comment on the organizational structure of the food plant ‘‘Miam’’, Sophie lifts her forearms, folds herhands at chin level and engages in mutual gaze with Charles (l. 2--3, Fig. 14). By maintaining this hand position, she displays

Figs. 13--15.


Figs. 16 and 17.

that there is more to come. But Fabien, still reading the brochure, interprets the 0.4 seconds of pause (l. 4) as a TRP: heself-selects with a minimal answer towards Sophie (‘‘oui’’/‘‘yes’’, l. 5), but projects a new action immediately afterwards(Jefferson, 1983b), introduced by ‘‘et’’/‘‘and’’ (l. 5). He turns his head in Charles’ direction, thus selecting him as recipientfor his incipient turn (Fig. 15). Though he quickly drops out, the fact that he turns the last page of the brochure after hisdrop out and maintains the position of his head towards Charles underlines the fact that he is waiting for another slot toimplement his turn.

Despite the minimal format (low volume) of Fabien's self-selection and his drop out (l. 5), his utterance seems todisturb Sophie's ongoing turn. She does not drop out of overlap, but suspends her turn on the following conjunction‘‘que’’/‘‘that’’ (l. 4). Her hands are still folded, her gaze still directed towards Charles, which indicates that she pursuesher action trajectory, but after Fabien's drop out, Charles starts to turn his head to the right and gazes at the brochureFabien repositions on the table (l. 4--5, cf. Fig. 16). He is thus no longer available as a recipient for Sophie. After ashort pause, Sophie and Fabien simultaneously self-select in order to continue their respective utterances (l. 7--8).However, Sophie drops out, having produced only a vowel with a glottalized stop. At the same time, she withdraws hergaze from Charles and starts to gaze at the documents on the table, then at Fabien (l. 7--8, Fig. 17). Fig. 17 also showsthat Sophie, despite her drop out and shift of gaze, maintains the position of her forearms and hands adopted duringher previous self-selection (l. 2, Fig. 14). We can therefore presume that she has not yet completely withdrawn fromher action trajectory.

Fabien now acknowledges Sophie's drop out by commenting on his potentially disruptive self-selection (l. 8).Sophie responds by explicitly yielding the turn to Fabien (l. 9). The following changes in her bodily conduct underlinethe fact that she nevertheless withdraws only progressively from her action trajectory, as she first orients towards apossible next slot after Fabien's turn. During her response to Fabien (l. 9), she starts touching and rubbing her nosewith her thumbs (Fig. 18), keeping her hands folded. As Fabien continues his turn (l. 11, commenting on the jobposition of a person mentioned in the brochure), Sophie progressively modifies the position of her hands: she firstunfolds them (l. 12), then moves one hand back to her nose (l. 12, Fig. 19). When Fabien finally finds the document hewas looking for and comes up with a more precise description of the person in the steering committee (‘‘notre ami’’/‘‘our friend’’, l. 11--12), Sophie also retracts her left hand, both hands now being relaxed (l. 12--14, Fig. 20). Whereas

Figs. 18--22.


her gaze had previously alternated between Fabien and the brochures, from now on she looks constantly at thedocuments. After Charles’ self-selection in overlap with Fabien (l. 13--14), Sophie finally lowers her head andsimultaneously moves both hands to her head (l. 15, Fig. 21). As Sophie transforms her upright posture into one thatis more limp (cf. M.H. Goodwin, 1997:84--85), and as both hands now cover her mouth, she no longer projects aresumption of her abandoned turn: she now displays a recipient posture, having definitively withdrawn from her actiontrajectory at that moment.

If we take a closer look at the temporality of Sophie's progressive withdrawal, we can see that she does not simplyprogressively modify her standby display (mainly the position of her hands) as Fabien progresses with his talk (l. 8--15).More precisely, she orients towards the combination of the relevance of Fabien's concurrent and competitive turn, and ofthe modification of the participation framework that accompanies Fabien's emerging utterance. Charles is originallyoriented towards Sophie, but when he withdraws his gaze and starts to look at Fabien, he is no longer available as arecipient for Sophie. Shortly thereafter, she stops speaking. Sophie could still use the next slot in order to resume heraction trajectory, even if in the meantime, she explicitly yields the turn to Fabien (l. 9, indeed, Fabien's turn could beanswered in a potentially short side sequence, after which Sophie could resume her turn). Immediately afterwards,Charles also starts to respond to Fabien verbally (l. 10), however, this response is rather minimal and acts in the sameway as Sophie's previous utterance, i.e., gives the floor to Fabien. But a few TCUs later, Charles intervenes in a moreconsistent way (l. 13): he briefly points to the document Fabien is commenting on and addresses his turn to Sophie (l. 13--14, ‘‘ouais on a l’organigramme’’/‘‘yeah we have the organizational chart’’). By doing so, he shows that he is clearlyinvolved in the development of the sequence initiated by Fabien, and that he treats Sophie as recipient within thissequence (see also his gaze to her, l. 15). Thus, the possibility that in a next slot he will again be available as a recipientfor Sophie (and that she can thus resume her abandoned turn) is even further diminished at that point. It is therefore notsurprising that Sophie definitively withdraws precisely after Charles’ turn by releasing her standby posture (Figs. 20 and21). Finally, she also becomes involved in the sequence initiated by Fabien, leaning forward in his direction and providingan answer to him (l. 17--18, Fig. 22).

The last example will show that the duration of a standby display can vary considerably, especially if the participant whodrops out is not directly addressed by the continuing talk (i.e., when there is low relevance for them to respond to thecontinuing talk, which could lead to the immediate abandonment of their own action trajectory, cf. excerpt 7), embodiedfeatures can be held throughout long spates of talk. In extract 9, Marie drops out shortly after her self-selection at a possibleTRP (l. 6), but displays a standby posture by maintaining one embodied feature for more than 50 s.

(9) (mosaic_122807)1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1112

13

LAU

mar

CED fig LAU

lau fig MAR - >

LAU

mar - >

lau fig

mar

fig

LAU

lau fig

CED

MAR - >

lau mar - > - > fig

&on voy ait tra ver ser fin ale men t: e t p uis arr ive r d ans &we coul d s ee (it) cr oss in the en d an d t hen arr ive i n l’es pace en ba*:s/ the spac e d own*sta irs *..g aze pl an L AU com ment s o n-- >> >>bo th f ore arm s li fte d, fist s s upp orts ch in- -> mh\#= #2 3 =c’e st j oli / d ’avo ir ça qui: : =it' s b eau tif ul t o h ave tha t ( whi ch:: ) (0.5 )#(0 .3) >,,r etra cts ge stur ing ha nds- > #24 *.th: : [+là :/ ] *.th: : [+th ere : ] [+tu t` sen s]# pa s *conf*iné #+da ns un e spa*ce ent err é [+yo u d o no t]#feel * enc*los ed#+ in a bur*ied sp ace *... RH d own to pla n.. ... .... ... *-R H/fo rea rm on t able--- --> l.1 2 *..L H re lea ses chi n.. ... ..*. ... .LH to hea d.. .... ...*--- --- --- > >,,, ,,,, +.. RH forw ard to pla n.. ... ...+ --R H g estu res on pla n-- > # 25 # 26 (0.3 ) et :#: l à fi nal eme nt o n e st en t rai n d ` su ppr ime r#& (0.3 ) an :#:d t her e fi nal ly w e are ta kin g awa y#& >--L H su ppo rts hea d-- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --->l.1 2/1 3 #2 6a #27

<(20 )#(3 0) ((in ter act ion bet wee n LA U & CE D)) > #27 a

&>>e t co mme nt tu r emo nte s<<+jus qu’ à:: °l ’ex té+rieu r\°#&>>a nd h ow you go bac k u p<<+ t o:: °th e o ut+side ° #>RH gest ure s a bove pl an- ---+ ,,, ,,,, ret rac ts RH+- on tab le-> #28 (1.1 ) oui\ mai s(h )+#f(h) ace [à son*be[ soi n d `] p lac e\#yes but (h) +#f(h) ace d w ith [hi s *ne[ ed for ] s pac e # [ . tsh*: [ moi :/ ] [ . tsh*: [ i: ] +. ..pu ts RH on c orn er of p lan th at r olled up-> >gaz e pl an- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --- --- ---- --->> >RH on t abl e--- --- --- ---- --- --- --- *..R H m ove s tw d plan ->> #2 8a # 29


Figs. 23--26.

During a work meeting, three architects are discussing their plans to transform a castle into a hotel. Laurent (LAU)argues that they should keep an open space in the basement (and thus a visual contact to the outside), which Cedric(CED) suggested should be closed (l. 1--2). During this complex turn, Marie (MAR) starts gazing at the plan Laurent iscommenting on (visible on the horizontal shots of this recording), both hands touching her chin (l. 2, Fig. 23). At thebeginning of the excerpt, Marie has not been speaking for more than one minute. After a lexically incomplete positiveassessment of the open space, Laurent retracts his gesturing right hand (l. 4--5, Fig. 24). At this TRP, Marie self-selectswith an audible inbreath, her left hand releasing her chin, and lowers her right forearm in the direction of the plan (l. 6,Fig. 25). But during her turn-beginning, Laurent quickly moves his right hand back to the plan and continues his argument(l. 7, Fig. 25), thus occupying the space Marie aims to point at as well (cf. Fig. 26). After one syllable, Marie drops out of theoverlap, and retracts her left hand to her head again (Fig. 26). While this left hand supporting her head (later her chin, seeFigs. 28 and 29) resembles the posture she held before her self-selection (cf. Figs. 23 and 24), she continues themovement of her right forearm after the drop out so that it remains extended on the table in the direction of the plan (l. 8,Fig. 27). Marie thus does not completely readopt the posture she had been holding previous to her self-selection. Insteadof also retracting her right forearm (as she does with her left arm), she visibly positions her right forearm close to the centralinteractional space in the middle of the table. Moreover, Marie tenses her wrist so that her right hand remains in an upright,unrelaxed position (while still holding the biro, Fig. 26a). Through her extended right forearm and hand, Marie thus projectsa possible resumption of her abandoned turn at a later moment. Marie continues gazing at the plan and holds the standbyposition of her right arm and hand for the next 50 s, without intervening in the ongoing interaction between Laurent andCedric (l. 9).

50 s later, Laurent arrives again at a possible completion of his turn and argumentation against Cedric's position andretracts his hand from the plan (l. 10, Fig. 28). After a long pause, Cedric proposes a new counterargument (l. 11-12).Shortly afterwards, Marie self-selects again (l. 13). Although the first word of her turn is not the same as before

Figs. 27--29.


Fig. 26a--28a.

(‘‘là’’/‘‘there’’, l. 6, vs. ‘‘moi’’/‘‘i’’, l. 13) and thus does not explicitly display cohesion between her two self-selections, theconstant position of her right arm on the table close to the plan and the maintenance of the tensed position of her wristdemonstrate that she still claims the possibility of being the next speaker (Figs. 26a, l. 8, 27a, l. 9, 28a, l. 12).

As Marie did not formulate a point of view on the issue her colleagues were raising (and thus did not align with eitherCedric's or with Laurent's position), one could presume that both the abandoned turn in line 6 and the turn beginning in line13 involve the same action trajectory. In the complex turn she develops from l. 13 onwards (not shown here), Marie finallylinks back to Laurent's position and suggests another solution to the problem. Moreover, while during her first attempt,Marie could not point to the plan because of Laurent's gesturing hand, she now moves her right hand closer in order topoint at the same space on the plan as Laurent had (l. 12, Fig. 29, cf. Figs. 23, 26, 27). The constant position of her rightforearm and hand, as well as her new self-selection more than 50 s later could hint at the pursuit of a single actiontrajectory, namely commenting on the architectural issue at stake and aligning with Laurent's point of view. Despite herdropping out, no definitive withdrawal occurs in this example: when Marie's emerging turn is overlapped by a continuationof her co-participants’ argument she quickly stops speaking. Nevertheless, the fact that she keeps her right hand in atensed position (instead of retracting it to her head or to the edge of the table, as she did with her left hand) until she self-selects again may display a constant projection of a possible resumption of her abandoned turn.

The examples in this section have shown that the embodied definitive withdrawal from an action trajectory and theresponse to a co-participant's turn -- or involvement in the continuing sequence -- can be considerably delayed. After theirdrop out, participants may monitor the ongoing interaction for a new slot where they can continue their suspended action.By holding at least one visible feature, they display a standby-mode, projecting a possible resumption of their abandonedturn at a later point. The activity of monitoring is sensitive to the development of the ongoing (formerly concurrent)sequence: if a possibly short turn is progressively transformed into a more complex one, the participant who dropped outmay treat this extension as too long to maintain their standby display any longer (see excerpt 5). In addition to monitoringthe continuing sequence, participants may also watch for changes in the participation framework after their drop out thatmight improve or diminish the possibility of resuming the abandoned turn (excerpt 8). They can even hold standby displaysduring long stretches of co-participant talk and possibly resume much later (excerpt 9). This shows that a drop out ofoverlap is not automatically followed by a quick definitive withdrawal.

3. Conclusions

The multimodal analysis of drop out of overlap illustrates that the abrupt end of a turn during simultaneous talk does nota priori mean that participants instantly abandon the action they were implementing through talk when overlap with a co-participant's turn occurred. Through visible resources, participants may display beyond drop out that they continue toproject a possible resumption of their turn at a later point, or more globally, that they continue to pursue an aligningresponse from their co-participant(s) to their action trajectory. As certain postures, gestures, or facial expressions may beheld or continue beyond drop out, I suggest distinguishing the audible end of a turn in overlap, or drop out, from theembodied withdrawal after drop out. Only when all visible features displayed by the participant who dropped out havebeen visibly modified have they accomplished a definitive withdrawal. As drop out corresponds to the end of a turn as anaudible entity, an embodied withdrawal concerns the action trajectory that has been introduced on a trial basis bythe incomplete turn. As long as at least one embodied feature continues or is not visibly modified after overlap resolution


(i.e., drop out), participants can be said to display a standby position, by which they show that they still pursue their actiontrajectory and project its resumption at a later point. Those results may be schematized in the following way:

(10) Scheme of withdrawal and standby after drop out of overlap

If a turn in overlap ends with a drop out, the participant can progressively retract or modify certain embodied features(progressive withdrawal, top dotted line), or maintain them and thus display an embodied standby (standby, bottom dotted
line) whereby they project the possible later resumption of their talk. This is not an exclusive choice: often, while themodification of one or several visible features may embody a partial withdrawal, one or several other visible features cansimultaneously display a standby. The timing of those displays and of their modifications can vary in its onset and duration(oblique dotted lines to the left): a gaze shift can occur during overlap, precisely at the moment of drop out, or after overlapresolution, a pointing gesture may start during overlap and be held afterwards, or a visible feature such as an open mouthmay be maintained beyond drop out (or be adopted at the moment of drop out) in order to be exploited as a standbydisplay. Those multimodal displays can dynamically change after drop out, i.e., a standby display can be progressivelyabandoned or the withdrawal of a gesture may come to a halt (oblique dotted lines in the middle). After drop out,participants may either withdraw progressively until they display definitive withdrawal, or remain in standby until theyresume their action trajectory (right side of the scheme). In case of definitive withdrawal, the uptake of another sequence(by responding to a co-participant's action) can co-occur with the definitive withdrawal, but also later, well after theparticipant has withdrawn definitively. The length of the timeline from left to right is not significant in the sense that theduration of both embodied withdrawal and standby can vary from a micro-pause after overlap to longer spates of time (cf.excerpt 9).
The reasons for stopping speaking during overlap are manifold (divergent interpretations of a TRP, co-participant'supgrade to a competitive format, unavailability of the recipient etc.) and are yet to be systematically explored. If we takeinto account what happens after overlap resolution, we can see that participants who drop out are sensitive both to issuesof sequentiality and participation. On the one hand, embodied displays of withdrawal or standby are linked to therelevance set up by a concurrent, overlapping turn. If the participant who dropped out treats their co-participant's action asmore relevant at that moment or gets involved in it via other-selection, this suggests the abandonment of their own actiontrajectory. On the other hand, a participant who dropped out pays attention to shifts in the participation framework, i.e., thetiming of their withdrawal or standby depends also on the availability of their recipient(s) (Oloff, 2012), or on shifts in theirown availability. The development of an action trajectory into a sequence depends more generally on both an adequatesequential position and an adequate participation framework for its implementation.

The analysis of video data enables us to demonstrate that the pursuit or abandonment of an action trajectory does notdepend exclusively on audible action (speaking vs. not speaking), but can be carried out in embodied, dynamic ways.Participants do not simply pursue or abandon turns-at-talk, but, more precisely, action trajectories that are oftenimplemented by turns-at-talk. While audio data can help to identify the phenomenon of drop out as a punctual event, videodata sheds light on the gradual and processual nature of embodied withdrawal. Multimodal analysis can thus lead toreflections on the boundaries of audible phenomena and their precise link to visible conduct.

While this paper has focused on the embodied display of withdrawal, a detailed analysis of the visible management ofwithin-overlap-talk could reveal the precise interplay between audible turn formats and changes in visible conduct,developing Schegloff's (2000) findings on overlap resolution during competitive simultaneous talk. In addition, the precisegrammatical features of drop out have yet to be explored, as specific phonetic (glottal stop vs. none) or syntactic features ((in)


completeness of the syntactic structure) of a given language may be linked to specific withdrawal patterns and differentdegrees of problematicity of the overlapping talk. The idea of progressive, embodied withdrawal is also clearly related tomanagement of action trajectories, which may possibly lead to a revision of concepts such as suspension, resumption, andside sequence (Jefferson, 1972; Mazeland and Huiskes, 2001; Oloff, 2010). This paper could therefore only presentpreliminary observations that may contribute to a better understanding of simultaneous talk as an embodied phenomenon.

Transcription conventions

: xxx extra= wha- °okay° WELL >>okay<< €er €

incomprehensible segment prominence of talk latching trunca tion low vo lume increa sed volume accelerated speec h creaky voice

- - - - , , , , sop fig

#

ppp RH/LH

retracti on of gesture pseudo nym of parti cipant do ing the gesture the exact po int where a frame grab (figure) has bee n taken is indica ted,wit h a spec ific sign sho wing its positi on wit hin a turn at talk pointi ng gestureright hand, left hand

1 SOP

[ ] (.) (0.7) / \ & .h/h (h) (wil l) ((laughs)) < > ¿

original talk approximate translation

overlap (onset & end ) micro-pause (< 0.2 second s) length of pauses in sec ond s rising / fall ing \ intonation conti nuation of current turn brea th (in / ou t) laugh ter particle unce rtain transcription comments delimitati on of pheno mena no ted wit hin (( )) glott al stop sou nd stretch

*, +, £

*- - >

*- ->>

>- - -

>>- -

-->l.12 . . . .

deli mit ate a participant's gestures and actionsgesture or ac tion described conti nues ac ross sub sequ ent li nesgesture or ac tion described conti nues until and after the end of the exce rptgesture or ac tion described begins before the beginning of the li negesture or ac tion described begins before the beginning of the exce rpt gesture con tinu es un til li ne 12 preparation of gesture apex of gesture is reac hed and maintained

References

Bohle, Ulrike, 2007. Das Wort ergreifen -- das Wort übergeben. Explorative Studie zur Rolle redebegleitender Gesten in der Organisation desSprecherwechsels. Weidler, Berlin.

Chevalier, Fabienne, 2008. Unfinished turns in French conversation: how context matters. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41 (1),1--30.

Chevalier, Fabienne, Clift, Rebecca, 2008. Unfinished turns in French conversation: projectability, syntax and action. Journal of Pragmatics 40(10), 1731--1752.

De Stefani, Elwys, 2007. La suspension du geste comme ressource interactionnelle. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ISGS Conference ‘‘InteractingBodies’’. Lyon, 2005.

Drew, Paul, 2009. Quit talking while I’m interrupting: a comparison between positions of overlap onset in conversation. In: Haakana, M., Laakso,M., Lindstro ̈m, J. (Eds.), Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions. Finnish Literature Society, Helsinki, pp. 70--93.

Ford, Cecilia E., 2004. Contingency and units in interaction. Discourse Studies 6 (1), 27--52.Ford, Cecilia E., Thompson, Sandra A., 1996. Interactional units in conversation: syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for turn

management. In: Ochs, E., Schegloff, E.A., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.134--184.

French, Peter, Local, John, 1983. Turn competitive incomings. Journal of Pragmatics 7, 17--38.Goodwin, Charles, 1979. The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In: Psathas, G. (Ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in

Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers, New York, pp. 97--121.Goodwin, Charles, 1980a. Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3/4), 272--

302.Goodwin, Charles, 1981. Conversational Organization. Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York.Goodwin, Charles, 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10), 1489--1522.Goodwin, Charles, Goodwin, Marjorie H., 2004. Participation. In: Duranti, A. (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Basil Blackwell,

Oxford, pp. 222--244.Goodwin, Marjorie H., 1980b. Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry 50 (3/4),

303--317.Goodwin, Marjorie H., 1997. Byplay: negotiating evaluation in storytelling. In: Guy, G.R., Feagin, C., Schiffrin, D., Baugh, J. (Eds.), Towards a

Social Science of Language: Papers in Honor of William Labov. Vol. 2. Social Interaction and Discourse Structures. John Benjamins,Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 77--102.

Heritage, John, 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of SocialAction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 299--345.

Jasperson, Robert, 2002. Some linguistic aspects of closure cut-off. In: Ford, C.E., Fox, B.A., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), The Language of Turn andSequence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 257--286.


Jefferson, Gail, 1972. Side sequences. In: Sudnow, D. (Ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. The Free Press, New York, pp. 294--338.Jefferson, Gail, 1973. A case of precision timing in ordinary conversation: overlapped tag-positioned address terms in closing sequences.

Semiotica IX (1), 47--96.Jefferson, Gail, 1983a. Notes on some orderlinesses of overlap onset. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature (Tilburg University) 28.Jefferson, Gail, 1983b. Caveat speaker: preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature (Tilburg

University) 30.Jefferson, Gail, 1986. Notes on ‘latency’ in overlap onset. Human Studies 9 (2/3), 153--183.Jefferson, Gail, 2004. A sketch of some orderly aspects of overlap in natural conversation. In: Lerner, G.H. (Ed.), Conversation Analysis. Studies

from the First Generation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 43--59.Laursen, Lone, 2007. Towards an embodied grammar. Gesture in tying practices constructing obvious cohesion. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ISGS

Conference ‘‘Interacting Bodies’’. Lyon, 2005.Mazeland, Harrie, Huiskes, Mike, 2001. Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In: Selting, M., Couper-Kuhlen, E.

(Eds.), Studies in Interactional Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 141--169.Mondada, Lorenza, 2007a. L’interprétation online par les co-participants de la structuration du tour in fieri en TCUs: évidences multimodales.

Travaux neuchâtelois de linguistique 47, 7--38.Mondada, Lorenza, 2007b. Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9,

194--225.Mondada, Lorenza, Oloff, Florence, 2011. Gesture in overlap: the situated establishment of speakership. In: Stam, G., Ishino, M. (Eds.),

Integrating Gestures: The Interdisciplinary Nature of Gesture. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 321--338.Oloff, Florence, 2009. Contribution à l’étude systématique de l’organisation des tours de parole: les chevauchements en français et en allemand.

PhD Dissertation, ENS LSH Lyon and University of Mannheim. https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/29617/.Oloff, Florence, 2010. Abandons de tours de parole: abandons, suspensions et séquences latérales. Workshop ‘‘Conversation Analysis in

French’’ (September 10--11, 2010, FRIAS, Freiburg i. Br.).Oloff, Florence, 2012. Withdrawal from turns in overlap and participation. In: Bergmann, P., Brenning, J., Pfeiffer, M., Reber, E. (Eds.), Prosody

and Embodiment in Interactional Grammar. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 207--237.Olsher, David, 2004. Talk and gesture: the embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction. In: Gardner, R., Wagner, J. (Eds.),

Second Language Conversations. Continuum, London, pp. 221--245.Sacks, Harvey, Scheglof, Emanuel A., 2002. Home position. Gesture 2 (2), 133--146.Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail, 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation.

Language 50 (4), 696--735.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1982. Discourse as an interactional achievement: some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences.

In: Tannen, D. (Ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Press, Georgetown, pp. 71--93.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1984. On some gestures’ relation to talk. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, pp. 266--296.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1988/1989. From interview to confrontation: observations of the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and

Social Interaction 22, 215--240.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 2000. Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29 (1), 1--63.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 2002. Accounts of conduct in interaction. Interruption, overlap, and turn-taking. In: Turner, J.H. (Ed.), Handbook of

Sociological Theory. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 287--321.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction. A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Schmitt, Reinhold, 2005. Zur multimodalen Struktur von turn-taking. Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 6, 17--61.Schmitt, Reinhold, Deppermann, Arnulf, 2007. Monitoring und Koordination als Voraussetzungen der multimodalen Konstitution von Inter-

aktionsräumen. In: Schmitt, R. (Ed.), Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion. Gunter Narr, Tübingen, pp. 95--128.Steensig, Jakob, Asmuß, Birte, 2005. Notes on disaligning ‘yes but’ initiated utterances in German and Danish conversations: two construction

types for dispreferred responses. In: Hakulinen, A., Selting, M. (Eds.), Syntax and Lexis in Conversation. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 349--373.

Streeck, Jürgen, 2007. Geste und verstreichende Zeit: Innehalten und Bedeutungswandel der ‘‘bietenden Hand. In: Hausendorf, H. (Ed.),Gespräch als Prozess. Linguistische Aspekte der Zeitlichkeit verbaler Interaktion. Gunter Narr, Tübingen, pp. 157--180.

Streeck, Jürgen, Hartge, Ulrike, 1992. Previews: gestures at the transition place. In: Duranti, A., Goodwin, C. (Eds.), Rethinking Context:Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 135--157.

Florence Oloff is currently affiliated as a research assistant with the Department of Linguistics and Literature at the University of Basel,Switzerland. In 2009, she has completed her dissertation on overlapping talk in French and German at the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon andthe University of Mannheim. She has worked as research assistant within the European research project DYLAN (‘‘Language dynamics andmanagement of diversity’’, FP6), and within the French research project SPIM (‘‘Imitation in Speech’’) at the ICAR Research Lab, Lyon. Besidessimultaneous talk and turn-taking, her research interests include multilingual interactions (in work settings), and video analysis.

https://ub-madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/29617/

Documents

Embodied withdrawal after overlap resolution