662
U
Property:AnnText
This is a property of type Text.
Pages using the property "AnnText"
Showing 25 pages using this property.
I | |
|---|---|
| IADA2019 + | Call for Papers: International Association for Dialogue Analysis Conference, Milwaukee, July 2019 The 2019 IADA conference will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, July 24-27. The deadline for extended abstracts and panel proposals is February 15, 2019. For additional information, please see: https://www.uwp.edu/learn/departments/communication/iada-2019.cfm The conference theme is “Dialogic Matters: Social and Material Challenges for Dialogue in the 21st Century.” IADA 2019 invites presentations and panels that explore the various interconnections of dialogue, matter, matters of concern, and materiality. What are the specific social and material conditions which actually permit or facilitate dialogue? The conference will explore issues including the relevance and potential impact of various forms of dialogue on agency and action, the role of dialogue in addressing societal, political, cultural, medical, environmental, scientific, and technological 'matters of concern'. Proposals from any academic discipline addressing questions related to dialogue and dialogue studies are welcome. Questions regarding the conference may be directed to Theresa Castor, iada2019@uwp.edu + |
| IADA2026 + | The 2026 Conference of the International Association for Dialogue Analysis (IADA) will be held in Jyväskylä, Finland, on May 11-13, 2026, and will be hosted by the Department of Language and Communication Studies of the University of Jyväskylä. The conference will focus on the dynamic interconnections between dialogic processes and materiality in shaping societal and organizational phenomena. Several ongoing global developments, such as the climate crisis, pandemics, growing inequalities, and the proliferation of algorithmic technologies, challenge students, researchers, scholars, and educators to rethink the relationships between humans and their material environments. These developments raise fundamental questions that go to the heart of how we understand the nature of, for example, knowledge, interaction, power, and politics. They call us to overcome disciplinary polarization and contribute to new theoretical frameworks and methodological approaches that can serve as a basis for addressing the pressing issues of our time. Following the so-called ‘material turn’, a growing number of scholars in the human and social sciences recognize the deep entanglement of societal and organizational phenomena with materiality. This turn has recognized that material environments are not only about physical artifacts, but also about social and affective factors that both shape and are shaped by processes such as language, communication, and culture (Kuhn, Ashcraft & Cooren, 2017; Neville, Haddington, Heinemann & Rauniomaa, 2014; Pietikäinen, 2024; Streeck, Goodwin & LeBaron, 2011). To explore this interplay, scholars have developed and drawn upon a variety of theoretical positions, including actor-network theory (Latour, 2005), vital materialism (Bennett, 2007), agential realism (Barad, 2007), posthumanism (Braidotti, 2013), and the assemblage/agencement approach (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987). What these positions have in common is that they seek to overcome traditional dichotomies such as nature/culture, mind/matter, and human/non-human. This conference follows and seeks to enrich this general interdisciplinary trajectory. In keeping with IADA’s general focus on language as dialogue, it welcomes contributions on a wide range of topics and perspectives related to language use (e.g., conversation, discourse, and social interaction) that can help us better understand the dynamic interconnections between dialogic processes and materiality in shaping various societal and organizational phenomena. While much dialogue-related research has focused on human actors, it increasingly recognizes their mutual interconnectedness with materiality. This is evident already in Bakhtin’s words, which do not reduce dialogue to a purely human concern: “I hear voices in everything and dialogic relations among them” (Bakhtin, 1986, p. 169, emphasis in original). More recently, developments in domains such as multimodal conversation analysis (Mondada, 2019), digital discourse studies (Jones, 2020), and the constitutive view of communication (Ashcraft, Kuhn & Cooren, 2009; Cooren, 2006) have helped us to explore materiality in dialogic processes in different empirical contexts. The conference welcomes empirical, theoretical, and methodological papers from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Potential questions papers may address include, but are not limited to, the following: * How can we study and theorize the embodied (e.g., voice, gesture), physical, and environmental features of dialogue? * How do dialogues with materiality transform social narratives, organizational forms, and/or personal identities? * How do emerging technologies (e.g., algorithms, platforms) and ecological considerations challenge traditional understandings of materiality in dialogic practices? * How do material ecologies of contemporary production and consumption shape and orient social action? * What methodologies are needed to explore the material and affective registers of dialogic processes when they are understood as ‘pre-linguistic’ and ‘non-representational’? * How are societal and organizational phenomena materialized in and through material-discursive practices? * How do spaces, places, and atmospheres constitute and are constituted by dialogical action? * What ethical and political questions arise from the study of materiality in dialogical practices? Submit your abstract (max. 400 words including potential references) by 17 November 2025. The language of the conference is English. + |
| ICA-LSI Post-Conference at Georgetown 2019 + | * ICA Post-Conference * Value and Morality in Public Discourse * May 29, 2019 * Georgetown University, Department of Linguistics Concern regarding the morality, quality, and utility of public discourse is growing around the world. The organizers invite participants interested in language and social interaction (LSI) research to look beyond the moral panic and political partisanship permeating social media and the daily news cycle and to examine value (worth) and morality not as abstract philosophical, sociological, or cultural categories but as interactional phenomena. In particular, participants will reflect on the interactional mechanisms, accomplishment, social consequentiality, and cultural foundations of evaluations and assessments in public discourse. The purpose of this post-conference is to explore questions and issues related to value and morality in public discourse from an LSI perspective. Thus, the organizers wish to offer participants an opportunity to share ideas rather than present papers. The day-long conference will begin with a data session in which a panel of senior scholars will present their individual analyses of the same excerpt from public discourse data. Panelists will include Richard Buttny (Syracuse University), Donal Carbaugh (University of Massachusetts Amherst), and Deborah Tannen (Georgetown University). After the data session, participants will continue discussing the same data excerpt in breakout sessions. The afternoon will begin with roundtable sessions dedicated to the discussion of statements participants will be asked to submit to the organizers. Finally, the morning panelists will reflect on key themes and emerging research agendas in a closing session. The day will conclude with a social event. Program: * 8.30-9.00: Introductory remarks by the organizers * 9.00-11.00: Panel featuring senior scholars sharing their analyses of an excerpt from public discourse data * 11.00-11.30: Coffee break * 11.30-12.30: Breakout sessions dedicated to further discussion of the same data excerpt * 12.30-2.00: Lunch * 2.00-4.00: Roundtable sessions dedicated to discussions of abstracts submitted for the postconference * 4.00-4.30: Coffee break * 4.30-5.30: Closing session featuring senior scholars from the morning panel reflecting on key themes and emerging research agendas Participants representing all approaches within the LSI field (i.e., cultural, critical, discourse, EM/CA, practice and pragmatics approaches) are invited to register. The cost of registration is USD 50.00 Participants who register are asked to submit to the organizers a brief statement (150-200 words) responding to the following questions: * What are your research interests related to the post-conference theme (value and morality in public discourse)? * What is your preferred data (i.e., what do you regard as public discourse), and why? * What is your preferred research approach to public discourse? * What gap in relevant scholarship is your research designed to address? * What types of research collaborations would you be interested in pursuing? The organizers will use these statements to organize participants into breakout and roundtable sessions. Please email your statement to LangSocInt@gmail.com by May 3, 2019. Register for the conference here: https://www.icahdq.org/event/ValueandMoralityinPR_Postconf2019 Feel free to contact the organizers for more information. * Jessica Robles (Loughborough U, J.J.Robles@lboro.ac.uk) * Cynthia Gordon (Georgetown U, gordonc@georgetown.edu) * David Boromisza-Habashi (U of Colorado Boulder, dbh@colorado.edu) + |
| ICCA 2018 panel call on accountability for intersubjectivity + | Dear colleagues, Tom Koole and I are planning a panel on Accountability for intersubjectivity for the ICCA-18 conference in Loughborough 11–15 July, 2018. Please find the panel abstract below. If you would like to participate, please contact us before September 4. Best wishes, Tom Koole (tom.koole@rug.nl) and Aino Koivisto (aino.koivisto@helsinki.fi) Accountability for intersubjectivity Establishing and maintaining intersubjectivity in interaction is in principle a task and a responsibility of all participants (Heritage 1984; Robinson 2016). Yet we often see occasions and encounters in which one party assumes primary responsibility. This suggests that for participants accountability for intersubjectivity is not necessarily evenly distributed. Participants may hold themselves accountable for intersubjectivity, e.g. by checking their correct understanding or by checking the other party’s understanding, and for a lack of intersubjectivity, e.g. by producing explicit claims of now-understanding after an initial failure to understand (Koivisto 2015), and they may assign responsibility to another party. For example in other-initiation of repair the responsibility is generally placed with the producer of the trouble-source. However, there are specific interactional tools with which the repair initiators may hold themselves accountable, such as apology-based formats (sorry) (Robinson 2006) and using a repair receipt (Finnish particle aa) as a sign of problem-resolution (Koivisto 2015). Koole (2010) showed that in encounters between math teachers and students, in most cases the teacher assumes responsibility for the student’s understanding by producing checks such as ‘now you do understand?’ while in fewer cases a student formulates her understanding (e.g. ‘oh five times fifteen is what you do’) and thus assumes responsibility. We see these phenomena more generally in institutional encounters that centre around informing, instructing and/or decision-making such as call-centre calls and educational and clinical encounters: one of the participants assumes primary responsibility for establishing intersubjective meaning. In this panel we aim to explore the practices that are used to assume accountability for intersubjectivity as well as the sequential and institutional contexts in which these practices are used. The panel is open to analyses both of mundane and institutional data. * Heritage, John (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press * Koivisto, Aino (2015) Displaying Now-Understanding: The Finnish Change-of-State Token aa, Discourse Processes, 52:111–148, 2015 * Koivisto, Aino (2017) Repair receipts in maintaining and restoring intersubjectivity, paper presented at the Intersubjectivity in Action conference, Helsinki 11-13 May 2017 * Koole, Tom (2010) Displays of epistemic access. Student responses to teacher explanations, Research on Language and Social Interaction, vol. 43, issue 2, 183-209 * Robinson, Jeffrey D. (2006) Managing Trouble Responsibility and Relationships During Conversational Repair, Communication Monographs Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 137-161 * Robinson, Jeffrey D. (ed.) (2016) Accountability in Social Interaction, Oxford: Oxford University Press + |
| ICCA2018 panel on Beginning and Ending Interaction + | '''ICCA 2018 Panel title: Beginning and Ending Interaction''' Panel organizer: Danielle Pillet-Shore (University of New Hampshire), danielle.pillet-shore@unh.edu Some of the earliest conversation analytic research demonstrates that interactions do not simply begin, nor end – rather, participants actively open and close their conversational encounters (Schegloff, 1968; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973:290). Openings (commonly referred to as “greetings” in the broadest sense of the term; e.g., Kendon & Ferber, 1973) are clearly critical to daily social life: when people open an interaction, they (re)constitute their social relationship (Pillet-Shore, 2008; 2012; Schegloff, 1986). Openings are a locus for important interactional work, including marking interpersonal access, presence validation and threat denial (Youssouf, Grimshaw & Bird, 1976), and establishing the nature of the encounter and its organization (e.g., what will be done and/or talked about, in what order). Correlatively, closings (also referred to as “partings”, “leave-takings”, “farewells”, “goodbyes”, “endings”, and “departures”) constitute a “supportive ritual” that “brings the encounter to an unambiguous close, sums up the consequence of the encounter for the relationship, and bolsters the relationship for the anticipated period of no contact” (Goffman, 1971:79). Given the importance of examining the multimodal details of how people begin and end their encounters (cf. LeBaron & Jones, 2002; Mondada, 2009; Pillet-Shore, 2008; 2012), it is understandable that the majority of extant CA work examines either how participants open or close their interactions. But this panel unites these separate lines of research with the aim of generating discussion about points of possible convergence (e.g., how parties use reciprocally-related actions/practices to constitute openings and closings), following Goffman’s suggestion that “greetings and farewells provide ritual brackets around a spate of joint activity – punctuation marks as it were—and ought therefore to be considered together” (Goffman, 1971:79). This panel welcomes contributions examining how participants to naturally occurring social interaction – be it casual or institutional, face-to-face or mediated – use multimodal resources – including talk, prosody, and embodiment – to collaboratively open and/or close their encounters. '''References''' Goffman, E. (1971). Supportive interchanges. Pp.62-94 in Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York: Harper & Row. Kendon, A. & Ferber, A. (1973). A description of some human greetings. Pp. 591-668 in R.P. Michael & R.P.J.H. Crook, (Eds.), Comparative Behaviour and Ecology of Primates. London: Academic Press. LeBaron C.D. & Jones, S.E. (2002). Closing up closings: Showing the relevance of the social and material surround to the completion of interaction. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 542-565. Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public space: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977-1997. Pillet-Shore, D. (2008). Coming together: Creating and maintaining social relationships through the openings of face-to-face interactions. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles. Pillet-Shore, D. (2012). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 375-398. Schegloff, E.A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70, 1075-1095. Schegloff, E.A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151. Schegloff, E.A. & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289-327. Youssouf, I.A., Grimshaw, A.D. & Bird, C.S. (1976). Greetings in the desert. American Ethnologist, 3, 797-824. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on Collecting, archiving and using data from sensitive and complex environments + | '''Panel title: Collecting, archiving and using data from sensitive and complex environments''' Co-conveners: Dr Wendy Archer, Dr Ruth Parry '''Call for papers:''' Conversation analysis is growing – increasingly data are collected and used not only to analyse complex and sensitive interactions, but also to build applications such as training resources. This panel will showcase and explore the development of practices for collecting, archiving, using, and re-using video and audio data from sensitive and complex environments. We invite contributions in two interrelated areas: '''1. Data collection''' Traditionally, conversation analysts have provided only limited descriptions of their data collection procedure. This can lead to questions about the data’s validity and study replicability. It also means conversation analysts ‘reinventing the wheel’ as they begin new studies. These matters are all the more important in sensitive and complex environments. Recently, researchers have begun to document data collection procedures (Mondada 2008, 2013; Parry, Pino et al. 2016). We invite contributions from researchers about their experiences and practices of data collecting. '''2. Data archiving and re-use''' The value of archiving data and re-using it is increasingly recognised by the scientific community and by funding bodies across the world. In the past conversation analysts have often been required to destroy data collected in sensitive environments (particularly healthcare); nowadays the increasing support for archiving provides the conversation analytic community with opportunities to safely reuse and share our – often hard won - data. We invite contributions from researchers who are actively involved in archiving data and/or in re-using archived data. Please send expressions of interest and/or draft abstracts as soon as possible to Dr Wendy Archer (wendy.archer@nottingham.ac.uk). We will review full abstracts on Monday 25th September am. '''References''' Mondada, L. (2008). Video Recording as the Preservation of Fundamental Features for Analysis. Video Analysis. H. Knoblauch, J. Raab, H.-G. Soeffner and B. Schnettler. Bern, Lang: 51-68. Mondada, L. (2013). The Conversation Analytic Approach to Data Collection. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. J. Sidnell and T. Stivers. Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell. Parry, R., M. Pino, C. Faull and L. Feathers (2016). "Acceptability and design of video-based research on healthcare communication: Evidence and recommendations." Patient Education and Counseling 99(8): 1271-1284. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on Complaints about non-present third parties + | '''Panel title: “Complaints about non-present third parties”''' Organizers: Birte Asmuß, Aarhus University, Denmark Johanna Ruusuvuori, Tampere University, Finland Complaints have been defined as the expression of negative feelings about a specific issue, the so-called ‘complainable’ (Drew & Holt 1988), for which another person, institution or the like can be held responsible (Heinemann & Traverso 2009). Several studies show that complaints project an affiliative response from the co-participant (Drew & Walker 2009, Traverso 2009, Holt 2012). As complaints embed a negative stance they are rarely delivered in a straightforward way, rather, they evolve as a moment-by-moment achievement of the participants (Heinemann & Traverso 2009). Doing complaining involves moral work which impacts the subsequent responses to the complaints (Drew 1988, Holt 2012). This is observable in that complaints mostly consist of extended stretches of talk (Traverso 2009, Ruusuvuori & Lindfors 2009). Moreover, complaints are often embedded in other activities. By way of example, troubles talk (Jefferson 1988), and whining and moaning (Edwards 2005, Traverso 2009) have been identified as related to or part of complaint sequences. The panel seeks to focus on one specific form of complaint sequences, namely complaints about non-present third parties. In this type of complaints, the response tends to consist of a display of (dis)affiliation with the complaint (Drew & Walker 2009). In institutional contexts, this orientation to affiliation gets complicated (Ruusuvuori & Lindfors 2009). We want to dig further into this specific form of complaint in order to understand the ways in which issues of morality, affiliation, and disaffiliation are made relevant and managed. The panel also seeks to further investigate the embeddedness of complaints about third parties in other activities (Edwards 2005, Traverso 2009), and examine what kinds of activities complaints are part of or related to, and how the ongoing activity impacts the way in which complaints are introduced, developed, and responded to. The panel welcomes contributions studying complaints about third parties in everyday as well as in institutional contexts, tracing the possible specificities ensuing from the participants’ orientations to the epistemic and deontic stances regarded relevant in the situation. Those interested in joining the panel should contact: Birte Asmuß, asmuss@mgmt.au.dk Johanna Ruusuvuori, johanna.ruusuvuori@uta.fi '''References''' Drew 1998. Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31: 3-4: 295-325. Drew & Holt 1988. Complainable matters: the use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints. Social Problems 35: 4: 298-417. Drew & Walker 2009. Going too far: complaining, escalating and disaffiliation. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2400-2414. Edwards 2005. Moaning, whinging and laughing: the subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies 7: 1: 5-29. Jefferson 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems: 35: 4: 418-441. Heinemann & Traverso 2009. Complaining in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2381-2384. Holt 2012. Using laugh responses to defuse complaints. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45: 4: 430-448. Ruusuvuori & Lindfors 2009. Complaining about previous treatment in health care settings. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2415-2434. Traverso 2009. The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2385-2399. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on Institutional Practices in ELT Classroom Interaction + | '''Institutional Practices in ELT Classroom Interaction''' Friedrich Lenz and Maximiliane Frobenius (both Hildesheim University, Germany) are planning to submit a panel proposal for ICCA in 2018. Please find our panel abstract below. If you are interested, please contact us via email: frobeniu @ uni-hildesheim .de by '''September 26'''. '''Presentation''' An increasing number of people throughout the world learn and speak English, and the institutionalized practice of teaching and learning it – English Language Teaching (ELT) – has undergone fundamental changes in recent years. Today, the search for the most effective ‘one size fits all’ teaching method has been largely abandoned and research has placed more emphasis on contextual variables (e.g. teaching materials, syllabus and task design) and the complexity of the classroom context itself (Renandya and Widodo 2016). This shift is supported by conversation analytic research (e.g. Jenks and Seedhouse 2015) on talk-in-interaction in ELT classrooms, which has offered unique insights into the multifaceted and complex nature of the language classroom as a social setting and on how teaching and learning is accomplished in situ in classroom interaction. Following Drew and Heritage’s (1992) seminal work on talk-at-work, this panel aims at illuminating key institutional practices (i.e. turn-taking, sequence-organization, turn-design and repair) and their reflexive relationship (Seedhouse 2004) and effect on talk-in-interaction in ELT classrooms. It regards these practices as fundamental resources for interactional competence in the classroom (Wong and Waring 2010). Since a growing body of ELT research uses video-recordings, the panel is especially interested in how multimodal and semiotic features (e.g. gaze, facial expression, gestures, prosody) interplay with verbal conduct in classroom interaction and how different classroom resources (e.g. teaching materials) are integrated in the production of institutional practices. We welcome contributions that investigate questions such as: How do teachers and pupils organize their lessons? How do they manage to secure und allocate turns? How do they design their actions to fit certain pedagogical actions (e.g. questions, instructions, disciplining)? How do they deal with trouble in talk? By discussing such questions, we would like to contribute to the growing body of CA research on ELT classroom interaction. The panel invites contributions from any of the various settings in which ELT research is conducted ranging from pre-school to university. '''References''' Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Jenks, C. J. and Seedhouse, P. (eds) (2015) International perspectives on ELT classroom interaction. Basingstoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Renandya, W. A. and Widodo, H. P. (2016) English Language Teaching Today: An Introduction. In H. P. Widodo and W. A. Renandya (eds). English language teaching today: Linking theory and practice , 3–12. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Seedhouse, P. (2004) The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Wong, J. and Waring, H. Z. (2010) Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. New York: Routledge. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on Mediated Interaction + | Panel title Orders of Mediated Interaction '''Organizers''' Ilkka Arminen (University of Helsinki), Christian Licoppe (Telecom Paristech), Jo Meredith (Salford University), Anna Spagnolli (University of Padua), Wyke Stommel (Radboud University, Nijmegen) We are organizing a panel at ICCA18 on Orders of mediated interaction, whose current description can be found below. If you have any original (i.e., not published) work suitable to the panel, please send it to us! We collect '''proposals till September 12'''; they will be reviewed for suitability to the panel and the '''feedback will be returned by September 22nd'''. According to the conference rules, proposals need to be up to 500 words in length, including any data examples andreferences. Please add all authors’ names and affiliations and send it to: mediatedicca18@gmail.com '''Abstract''' This panel focuses on the way in which interaction is organized when it occurs in settings that are supported by information and communication technology and is usually referred to as mediated interaction. The panel is open to display original CA-driven investigation of any phenomena occurring on any technically-mediated environment, from pervasive and common everyday life devices to innovative and unique research prototypes. The main restriction to the kind of phenomena covered is methodological: the panel makes the choice of focusing on those practices and phenomena that can be accounted for with reference to the affordances that the mediating technology offers (Arminen et al 2016). This will avoid essentialist approaches that understand mediated interaction as merely characterized by a ‘container’ of a technical nature and then characterizes as mediated any phenomena occurring in such a container. The panel will also encourage the motivated comparison with interactional practices found in other conversational settings than the one considered: this will avoid misleading approaches to mediated interaction assuming it to be a priori different, poor or artificial compared with face-to-face interaction. Based on the experience with previous panels on this topic at ICCA 2014 and 2010, we recommend presenters to focus on one phenomenon or practice found in the data, in order to analyze and discuss it thoroughly, and to describe the affordance of relevance in the device considered in the study, since not all members in the audience might be familiar with it. In order to take the panel as a further opportunity for reflection, taking up the issues raised by the MOOD network (Giles et al, 2015; Meredith, 2016), presenters will be asked to share their thoughts on CA and mediated interaction. They could comment for instance on the ways in which they find CA relevant for studies in mediated interactions, what salience they find mediated interactions possesses for CA (new phenomena, new kinds of actions, new sequential environments) and/or what methodological challenges (multimodal transcription, mediated/distributed presence) mediated interaction sets to CA studies. For this reason, presenters will be asked to devote a few minutes of their presentation to these reflections, possibly starting from the work they described in the panel. '''References''' Arminen, I., Licoppe, C., & Spagnolli, A. (2016). Respecifying mediated interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(4), 290-309. Giles, D., Stommel, W., Paulus, T., Lester, J., & Reed, D. (2015).Microanalysis of online data: The methodological development of “digital CA”. Discourse, Context & Media, 7, 45-51. Meredith, J. (2016). Using discourse and conversation analysis to analyse online data. In D Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research (4th ed). London: Sage Publications. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on experience reference + | Experience reference in social interaction This panel focuses on the social organization of reference to experience in interaction: how people refer to their own and others' personal experiences to accomplish social actions, and the constraints on interactional uses of one's own and others' experiences. Sacks contrasted the ways in which people make use of experience as opposed to knowledge: ...if I tell you something that you come to think is so, you are entitled to have it. And you take it that the stock of knowledge that you have is some- thing that you can get wherever you get it, and it is yours to keep. But the stock of experiences is an altogether differently constructed thing. As I say, in order to see that that is so, we can just, for example, differentiate how we deal with a piece of knowledge and how we deal with someone else's experience, and then come to see that experiences then get isolated, rather than that they are themselves as productive as are pieces of knowledge. (Sacks 1984:425) People treat others' experiences as owned by them (Perakyla and Silverman, 1991). At the simplest level, this means that people normally defer to others' right to define the quality of their subjective experience. However, there a many occasions in social life where people need to convey their understanding of others' experiences as grounds for what they are doing. In many situations, this entails the risk of defining the other's subjective experience on their behalf, and incurring in social sanctions for doing so. Empathy is a case in point. Heritage (2011) shows that recipients of troubles-tellings are recurrently faced with the task of displaying empathy to those teJNngs; this requires them to convey that they have some grasp or understanding of t he nature of the troublesteller's experience. However, in doing so they can go t oo far, and define the troubles-teller's experience on her/his behalf, which can attract negative sanctions. Speakers have practices to deal with this dilemma such as, for instance, referring t o parallel (i.e. "similar, but departicularized") experiences. Another example is t he case of challenging how someone feels or thinks about their own experience. Here too, speakers' problem is how to ground an action (in this case, a challenge) by displaying adequate understanding of the other's experience, whilst avoiding unwarranted claims about the nature of that experience. One solution is for speakers to comment upon their own experience in a way that conveys, only by implication, a challenge of the other's experience (Pino, 2017). These and other previous studies exemplify how the organisation of experience reference intersects, although is not reduced to, several domains of conversation analytic inquiry, including epistemics, emotion in interaction, affiliation, story-telling, assessments, and person reference. Building on previous studies, the panel aims t o explore the organisation of reference to personal experience in social interaction; actions that speakers convey by mentioning their experiences, as well as actions that embed references to one's own or others' experiences as part of their internal machinery; and the constraints and affordances bearing upon reference to experience across ordinary and institutional settings. Contact : Marco Pino: M.Pino@lboro.ac.uk for more information or to submit an abstract. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on interactions with people in crisis + | Dear All, Heidi Kevoe-Feldman and I are organising a panel on Interactions with people in crisis for the ICCA conference, to be held in Loughborough 11-15 July, 2018. Please find the panel abstract below. If you’re interested in contributing please get in touch with us by 8th September latest. Interactions with people in crisis This panel brings together current research on interactions with people in crisis, focussing on institutional services that routinely deal with crisis/emergency interventions, such as people’s suicidal behaviours, drug overdoses, and domestic abuse. Relevant services include helplines, emergency services (911 calls), (crisis) counselling services and the police. When dealing with a person in crisis, institutional members may be faced with interactional challenges. This panel focusses on the methods service providers use to meet such challenges and provide help. Previous conversation analytic studies have explored the social organisation of features associated with a current crisis, such as hysteria in emergency telephone calls (Whalen & Zimmerman 1998), and in interactions between the police and members of the public (Kidwell 2006). These studies show the implications that distress might have for dealing with institutional matters: while expressions of distress project urgency or desperation, and a person’s entitlement to be distressed, they also have the potential to cause problems for the encounter itself (Whalen & Zimmerman 1998). One common finding is that emotional distress halts the progressivity of the interaction, and affects the way in which institutional members manage urgency. For example, in a study of child protection helplines, Hepburn & Potter (2007) showed how emotional distress gets treated as accidental to the institutional matters at hand, such that the recipient may license a delay in progressivity, thereby not treating institutional matters as urgent. In addition to emotional distress, the interactional challenges relevant to a crisis/emergency response might include a person’s resistance, hostility and non-responsiveness (Morabito et al. 2012), which could be expressed through disaffiliation, noncompliance, or disengagement. We invite analytic enquiries into how service providers meet such ‘interactional asynchronies’ (Jefferson & Lee 1981). These enquiries may include, but are not restricted to, reassurances, challenges, (dis)affiliation, requests, directives, proposals, or (other) formulations of advice. With this panel we wish to contribute towards an empirically based understanding of crisis response and intervention in different services. We invite research on a range of different data, both telephone and face-to-face/video. The contributions can focus on current (crisis) emergencies, but also crisis-associated behaviour that is more long term, but which is currently being dealt with by a response unit (e.g. helplines, counselling, the police). References * Hepburn, Alexa, and Jonathan Potter. "Crying receipts: Time, empathy, and institutional practice." Research on Language and Social Interaction 40.1 (2007): 89-116. * Jefferson, Gail, and John RE Lee. "The rejection of advice: Managing the problematic convergence of a ‘troubles-telling’and a ‘service encounter’." Journal of pragmatics 5.5 (1981): 399-422. * Kidwell, Mardi. "‘Calm down!’: the role of gaze in the interactional management of hysteria by the police." Discourse Studies 8.6 (2006): 745-770. * Morabito, Melissa S., et al. "Crisis intervention teams and people with mental illness: Exploring the factors that influence the use of force." Crime & delinquency 58.1 (2012): 57-77. * Whalen, Jack, and Don H. Zimmerman. "Observations on the display and management of emotion in naturally occurring activities: The case of" hysteria" in calls to 9-1-1." Social psychology quarterly (1998): 141-159. Contact: Rein Ove Sikveland Research Associate Dept. of Social Sciences Loughborough University +44(0)1509222848 Webpage www.carmtraining.org + |
| ICCA2018 panel on non-lexical-vocalizations + | Leelo Keevalik (Linkoping) and Richard Ogden (York) are planning to propose a panel at ICCA in 2018 on the topic of non-lexical vocalizations in interaction In spoken interaction, there occur many vocalizations (or sound objects) that are composed of sounds made in the vocal tract which are not words or particles, but are non-lexical objects: examples from English in regular orthography include "ugh", "mmm", "argh!", "pfft!", "brr" (used in English to mark "cold"), "phew", and many others such as clicks or sighs. Items like these are clearly embedded within a linguistic context, but they are not normally thought of as linguistic objects: rather they are at the boundary of language and paralanguage, or non-language. In this panel, we will focus on such non-lexical vocalizations. We welcome papers that address one or more of the following questions: * How do they relate to turn-construction? * How do they relate to action-sequencing? * How are they used as part of embodied practices? * What resources do participants have to make sense of them? * What are the cross-linguistic similarities and differences that can be observed? Unravelling the delicacies of how non-lexical vocalizations are intertwined with speech, gesture and facial expression in the moment-by-moment unfolding of naturally occurring interaction across languages will help us to explore the boundaries between what is a linguistic item, what is a by-product of the human vocal tract, and what is socially organized. If you're interested in submitting a paper to the panel, please send an abstract of up to 500 words (including data examples and references) to both the organizers by the 5 thSeptember 2017: * Leelo Keevalik (leelo.keevalik@liu.se) * Richard Ogden (richard.ogden@york.ac.uk) Please feel free to contact us both informally before then. We will accept or reject proposals by mid-September, allowing colleagues to submit their abstract either to the panel or independently (the official deadline for ICCA being 30th September). We aim to get a good coverage of languages and phenomena in the panel. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on noticings as social actions + | Noticings as actions-in-conversation are a ubiquitous, versatile, but under-researched interactional phenomenon (Keisanen 2012), and various analytic descriptions of noticings are scattered throughout the CA literature. For example, Drew and Chilton (2000) point out that in telephone conversations, participants use oh-prefaced noticings when shifting topics in the midst of an ongoing course of action; when noticings are occasioned as by-products of copresence they have been described alongside 'response cries' (Goffman 1978): marking ostensibly internal, psychological events. Goodwin and Goodwin (2012) also show how noticings, when produced as 'prospective indexicals' (Goodwin 1996), can point "outside of talk", drawing as-yet-unnoticed resources into social action. Through this process, Schegloff (2007a, 218) suggests that noticings "put on offer a line of talk" that renders something as optionally relevant and 'noticeable' for use in subsequent interaction (Sacks 1995, II:91). Stivers and Rossano (2010) describe noticings as equivocally response-relevant since they only make a response optionally relevant next, whereas 'canonical' actions such as requests or invitations usually occasion fitted responses (or accounts for non-response). This has led some analysts to question whether noticings and other analytic descriptions of 'first actions' can be said to constitute social actions at all (Thompson, Fox, and Couper-Kuhlen 2015, 141). It is unclear whether noticings are organised with reference to prospectively paired 'action types' (Levinson 2013), or whether they are organised---as Schegloff (2007a, 219) suggests---as a generic kind of retro-sequence which points backwards to a prior 'noticeable' (just as repair points to a prior 'repairable' or laughter initiation to a prior 'laughable'). Of course, we also welcome contributions arguing that these invocations of 'noticing' in CA are analytical flawed descriptions that may obscure more of the action than they clarify. Without pre-specifying any one analytic characterization as definitive, this panel aims to bring together research that engages with noticings as actions-in-conversation. We invite perspectives on noticings that draw out their ambiguities as social actions, and that explore noticings alongside a range of embodied practices where describing (Sidnell and Barnes 2009), referring (Hindmarsh and Heath 2000), and categorising may also be at issue (Schegloff 2007b). Although we are primarily interested in empirical studies, we also invite contributers to address theoretical questions that arise from treating noticings as conversational devices. How are researchers' noticings and participants' noticings differently constitutive of interactional phenomena (Laurier 2013)? Do noticings function as ontological practices, through which participant roles, 'noticeable' resources and social actions emerge reflexively as an interactional environment in particular ways (Schegloff 2007b, 87 note 17; Albert 2016, 193–95). Drawing together diverse approaches to noticings, this panel asks how understanding noticings as actions-in-conversation may open up new empirical and theoretical questions and challenges. Contact: mick.smith.us@gmail.com / saul.albert@tufts.edu if you're interested in participating by the 20th September References * Albert, Saul. 2016. “Respecifying Aesthetics: Accounting for Taste in Everyday Talk.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Queen May University of London. * Drew, Paul, and Kathy Chilton. 2000. “Calling Just to Keep in Touch: Regular and Habitualised Telephone Calls as an Environment for Small Talk.” In Small Talk, edited by Justine Coupland, 137–62. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education. * Goffman, Erving. 1978. “Response cries.” Language 54 (4): 787–815. * Goodwin, Charles. 1996. “Transparent vision.” In Interaction and Grammar, edited by Emanuel A Schegloff and Sandra A Thompson, 370–404. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie Harness Goodwin. 2012. “Car Talk: Integrating Texts, Bodies, and Changing Landscapes.” Semiotica 191 (1/4): 257–86. doi:10.1515/sem-2012-0063. * Hindmarsh, Jon, and Christian Heath. 2000. “Embodied Reference: A Study of Deixis in Workplace Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (12). Elsevier: 1855–78. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00122-8. * Keisanen, Tiina. 2012. “‘Uh-Oh, We Were Going There’: Environmentally Occasioned Noticings of Trouble in in-Car Interaction.” Semiotic 191 (1/4): 197–222. doi:10.1515/sem-2012-0061. * Laurier, Eric. 2013. “Noticing: Talk, Gestures, Movement and Objects in Video Analysis.” In The SAGE Handbook of Human Geography, edited by Roger Lee, Noel Castree, Rob Kitchin, Victorial Lawson, Anssi Paasi, Chris Philo, Sarah Radcliffe, * Susan M Roberts, and Charles WJ Withers, 2nd ed., 31:250–72. London: Sage. * Levinson, Stephen C. 2013. “Action formation and ascription.” In The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, edited by Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, 101–30. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons. * Sacks, Harvey. 1995. Lectures on conversation. Edited by Gail Jefferson. Vol. II. London: Wiley-Blackwell. * Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007a. Sequence organization in interaction: Volume 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007b. “A tutorial on membership categorization.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (3): 462–82. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007. * Sidnell, Jack, and Rebecca Barnes. 2009. “Alternative, Subsequent Descriptions.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, edited by Jack Sidnell, Makoto Hayashi, and Geoffrey Raymond, 322–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Stivers, Tanya, and Federico Rossano. 2010. “Mobilizing Response.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 43 (1): 3–31. doi:10.1080/08351810903471258. * Thompson, Sandra A, Barbara A Fox, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2015. Grammar in Everyday Talk: Building Responsive Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, + |
| ICCA2018 panel on pain in interaction + | Ruth Parry, Amanda McArthur and Laura Jenkins are organizing a panel on Pain in Interaction for the ICCA conference, to be held in Loughborough July 11-15th, 2018. Please find the panel abstract below. If you’re interested in contributing, please get in touch with Laura (laura.jenkins@nottingham.ac.uk) or Amanda (ammcarth@ucla.edu) by September 15th. This panel aims to bring together conversation analytic research on pain in interaction. In extensive literature outside of conversation analysis, pain has been conceptualized primarily as an internal experience – physiological, neurophysiological, psychological and so on. But as conversation analysts and their predecessors have shown, our internal worlds – including physical and emotional sensations – are rendered social the moment they’re displayed or described, and that sociality shapes how we express them and how others respond to them. Existing conversation analytic research on pain has followed two predominant lines of inquiry. One set of studies focuses on pain as a display (e.g. a pain cry or assertion), which is embedded in the sequential and social organization of the ongoing activity (Heath 1989), can be co-constructed (Jenkins 2015), and can be used as an interactional resource to accomplish something else, like refusing to eat or convincing a child to eat (Jenkins & Hepburn 2015), sequentially organizing interactions with infants (Berducci 2016), and informing the doctor that something hurts during a physical exam when the doctor hasn’t asked (McArthur forthcoming). A second set of studies focuses on pain as a topic of talk, and the resources participants use to elicit or promote others’ or their own characterizations of pain sensations (Clemente, Lee & Heritage 2008; Clemente 2009; Jenkins 2015). A central theme in these studies is that, when an individual’s pain emerges or is elicited in interaction, the ways participants treat or deal with that pain – and the way it was displayed or described in the first place – are shaped by features of the local context, i.e. the setting, the overarching activity and its goals, and participants’ domains of expertise and rights to know and report on bodily sensations. This panel seeks contributions that broadly explore this theme or propose others, and which follow either line of inquiry described above in any institutional or everyday setting. Our panel aims to bring together the small but growing number of CA studies on pain in interaction, and put them in dialogue with one another to generate ideas about what kinds of practices cut across them, and what the study of pain can tell us about social interaction more generally. References * Berducci, D. F. (2016). Infants' pain cries: Natural resources for co-creating a proto-interaction order. Theory & Psychology, 26(4), 438–458. * Clemente, I. (2009). Progressivity and participation: Children's management of parental assistance in paediatric chronic pain encounters. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6), 872–888. * Clemente, I., Lee, S.-H., & Heritage, J. (2008). Children in chronic pain: Promoting pediatric patients' symptom accounts in tertiary care. Social Science & Medicine, 66(6), 1418–1428. * Heath, C. (1989). Pain talk: The expression of suffering in the medical consultation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(2), 113–125. * Jenkins, L. (2015). Negotiating pain: The joint construction of a child's bodily sensations. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(2), 298–311. * Jenkins, L., & Hepburn, A. (2015). Children's sensations as interactional phenomena: A conversation analysis of children's expressions of pain and discomfort. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 00, 1–20. * McArthur, A. (forthcoming). Getting pain on the table in primary care physical exams. + |
| ICCA2018 panel on recruitment and assistance + | The organization of assistance in interaction is a domain of action that CA research has only just begun to explore. The concept of recruitment covers the various ways in which one person can ask for, seek, or solicit help from another, including giving indirect and perhaps embodied indications of their need for assistance, as well as another's anticipation of someone's need for help and their offering or giving that help without being asked, without their help having been solicited. Recruitment refers not to a social action, nor a class of social actions, but to an interactional outcome or effect that participants in interaction have alternative methods to achieve (Kendrick & Drew, 2016). The identification and description of these alternative methods, as well as the principles by which they are organized, is the central aim of research on the organization of assistance. This pane! aims to bring together cutting-edge research on the recruitment of assistance in interaction. We seek to include papers that explore, for example: * the linguistic and embodied (multimodal) practices participants employ to display troubles; * solicitations of assistance in institutional as well as ordinary settings; and * the role of offering and requesting in the organization of assistance. Submit an abstract to Kobin Kendrick <kobin.kendrick@york.ac.uk> by 15 September 2017 + |
| ICCA2018 panel on teacher questioning + | Dear All, Piera Margutti (piera.margutti@yahoo.it) and I (Michael Gosen - m.n.gosen@rug.nl) are organising a panel on The granularity of teacher questioning for the ICCA conference, to be held in Loughborough 11-15 July, 2018. Please find the panel abstract below. If you’re interested in contributing please get in touch with us by 8th September latest. The granularity of teacher questioning Since the first seminal studies on classroom interaction were published (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; McHoul, 1978; Mehan, 1979a), the most prevalent sequential structure that has been described is the Initiation–Response–Evaluation (IRE) structure in which so-called known information questions (Mehan, 1979b) play a prevalent role. Forty years later, this structure still appears to be widely used in classrooms, despite being recurrently brought under discussion. For years scholars have criticized its formality as limiting the opportunities for student participation, searching for ways to enhance student participation through a larger use of genuine questions; but IRE-sequences initiated by teacher questions are still widely used (Nassaji & Wells 2000; Lyle 2008; Gardner, 2012; Margutti & Drew 2014). The current panel is not interested in the discussions about the IRE structure per se, but is fascinated by the fact that since teacher questioning has begun to attract interest, it is still mainly described in terms of the difference between known information questions and genuine questions. We are convinced that there is still a lot of work for CA with it’s expertise in (mundane) questioning to get better sight of the granularity of teacher questioning. This is important since questions are such a distinguishable part of the institutional setting of the classroom (Hayano, 2012). Therefore this panel aims to further identify and describe the pedagogic actions that are accomplished through questioning following the footsteps of for instance Levinson (1992), Lee (2007; 2008; for teacher evaluations), Lyle (2008), Margutti (2010) and Heritage and Heritage (2013). The panel is open to analyses of educational data that fit in with CA-studies on sequence organization that move beyond labelling interactional practices as IRE-sequences. We would like to extend our knowledge about classroom interaction as well as our knowledge about questioning in institutional settings in general by organizing a panel with contributions covering a range of pedagogic activities that are embodied through teacher questioning. References: * Gardner, R. (2012). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In T. Stivers & and J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. (pp. 593–611). Oxford: Wiley; Blackwell. * Hayano, K. (2012). Conversation analysis in the classroom. In T. Stivers & and J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. (pp. 395–414). Oxford: Wiley; Blackwell. * Heritage, M., & Heritage, J. (2013). Teacher Questioning: The Epicenter of Instruction and Assessment. Applied Measurement in Education, 26: 176–190. * Lee, Y. A. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: contingency and the work of teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1204–1230. * Lee, Y. A. (2008). Yes–No Questions in the Third-Turn Position: Pedagogical Discourse Processes. Discourse Processes, 45 (3), 237–262. * Levinson, S.C. (1992). Activity Types and Language. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, edited by P. Drew and J. Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. * Lyle, S. (2008). Dialogic Teaching: Discussing Theoretical Contexts and Reviewing Evidence from Classroom Practice. Language and Education 22 (3): 222–240. * Margutti, P. (2010). On Designedly Incomplete Utterances: What Counts as Learning for Teachers and Students in Primary Classroom Interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43(4), 315–345. * Margutti, P., & Drew, P. (2014). Positive evaluation of student answers in classroom instruction. Language and Education, 28(5), 436-458. * McHoul, A. (1978). The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom. Language and Society, 7, 183–213. * Mehan, H. (1979a). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press. * Mehan, H. (1979b). "What time is it, Denise?": Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice, 18(4), 285-294. * Nassaji, H.,& Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of triadic dialogue? An investigation of teacher–student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21 (3), 376-406 * Sinclair, J.M., & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press. + |
| ICCA2026 + | International Conference on Conversation Analysis 2026 ICCA2026<br> Dates: 2026/06/23-2026/06/29<br> Geolocation: Edmonton<br> Abstract due: July 31, 2025<br> Notification: Sep 31, 2025<br> Website: https://icca2026.org/<br> Tweet: https://x.com/icca2026<br> Details: We are excited to announce the upcoming International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA) on June 26-29, 2026, at University of Alberta, Canada, with pre-conference workshops June 23-25. The theme of the conference is: '''Diversities, Language, Interaction.''' Diverse cultures, languages, worldviews, and human experiences characterize the world that we live in. Diversities reflect the multitude of domains related to us and our lives, such as language, culture, gender, ethnicity, and age. Diversity is a lens through which we gain insights into the various perspectives and experiences that shape us and our world. By acknowledging and studying diversities in interaction, we open our research and ourselves to a wealth of knowledge that broadens our understanding of ourselves and the world around us and creates positive social change. Thus, diversity is a force fueling innovation and progress. The theme of ICCA2026—Diversities, Language, Interaction—highlights the multiplicity of diversities and brings a diversity lens to our research on language and interaction. ICCA2026 welcomes papers that contribute to our understanding of diversities, language, and interaction through addressing the following aspects, among others: * Diversity in languages * Diversity in types of interactions * Diversity in data * Diversity in tools, technologies, and methods * Diversity in research approaches and research perspectives * Diversity in modalities * Diversity in identities * Diversity in experiences ICCA2026 invites the following types of submissions: panels, individual papers, and posters. All abstracts must follow the instructions listed below and be submitted online via the Abstract Submission Portal linked below. The submission deadline is June 30, 2025 (11:59 p.m. Mountain Time/Edmonton local time). Please note that the closing date for abstract submissions will not be extended. https://icca2026.org/callforsubmissions/ We look forward to welcoming you in Edmonton! For any questions, please contact iccc [at] buksa [dot] com The Organising Committee Xiaoting Li (Chair), Emma Betz (Vice Chair), Yelena Gluzman, Martin Guardado, Kimberly Noels, Arlene Oak, Yoshi Ono, Yvonne Tse Crepaldi, Xiaoyun Wang and Shannon Ward + |
| ICCAP24program + | The International Conference on Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy 2024 (ICCAP24) will take place at the Leibniz-Institute for the German Language (IDS) in Mannheim, Germany from March 13 to 15, 2024. We are happy to announce that the programme for ICCAP24 is now available at: https://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/interaktion/manifestation-widerstand-psychotherapie/iccap24/programme/#c11202. Moreover, registration for the conference is possible until February 25 at: https://www.ids-mannheim.de/prag/interaktion/manifestation-widerstand-psychotherapie/iccap24/registration/ Thanks to funding from the DFG, we have been able to reduce registration fees to 100€/80€ (reduced rate). + |
| ICCAP26 + | From 26-28 February 2026 The International Conference of Conversation Analysis and Psychotherapy will be held in in Cracow, Poland. Conference theme: How Psychotherapy Works: Longitudinal Perspectives The conference will be exploring the mechanisms and processes that underpin effective psychotherapy over time. This theme will delve into how therapeutic interventions evolve, sustain, and influence client outcomes across various timeframes and contexts. By examining longitudinal studies, clinical experiences, and emerging research, the conference aims to provide deeper insights into the enduring impacts of psychotherapy, counseling, coaching and other professions of “talking cure”, fostering a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness and the factors that contribute to long-term success. Plenarists include Steven Clayman, Arnulf Deppermann, Joanna Pawelczyk, John Rae and Sanna Vehviläinen. Bernadetta Janusz is the chair of the Organizing Committee and Anssi Peräkylä is the chair of the Scientific Committee. Submission guidelines We invite researchers and practitioners of psychotherapy and related practices to participate in the conference. Submissions welcome in all conversation analytical topics relevant to the theme “How Psychotherapy Works: Longitudinal Perspectives”. We also welcome conversation analytical studies that explore ways in which psychotherapy works, without explicit focus on longitudinal processes. Scope of Topics and Methodologies We encourage conversation analytical contributions that address the conference theme, focusing on the processes and outcomes of psychotherapy over time. Submissions may include, but are not limited to: * Longitudinal or follow-up studies in psychotherapy and related practices * Case studies highlighting therapeutic processes and change over time * Studies focusing on process of change in sessions and in sequences * Methodological innovations in conversation analytical psychotherapy research * Studies combining conversation analysis with other qualitative or quantitative approaches * Theoretical perspectives on the mechanisms of change in psychotherapy Submission Categories Participants can submit abstracts for the following types of contributions: * Panel (90 min) (3 or 4 short presentations; submission to be made by panel organisers with abstracts of all presentations in one file attached to submission) * Data session (90 min) * Short presentation (15-20 min) Submission Process To submit your proposal, please complete the submission form (Abstracts should clearly outline the objective, methodology, key findings and relevance to the conference theme). * The deadline for submissions is on 1.07.2025 (CET). Acceptance of proposals will be announced by 31.07.2025 (CET). * We look forward to your contributions and an engaging exchange of ideas! + |
| ICODOC 2024 + | The ICAR lab (Lyon, France) is organizing the 5th edition of its ICODOC 2024 young researchers' conference, which will take place from 4 to 6 November 2024 at ENS of Lyon (France). It will focus on the theme: The power of words: language as a reflection and a vector of power; structured in 5 axes: Acting on language, expressing power Acting through language, bringing into existence Power asymmetries Transmission of power through language Knowledge and/is power The deadline for submitting a proposal is 5 May 2024. 3 plenary speakers are currently confirmed: Manon Him-Aquili, Associate Professor, Franche-Comté University (France) Josiane Boutet, Professor, Paris VII University (France) Maximilian Krug, Duisburg-Essen University (Germany) The detailed presentation (in English and French) and further information on how to submit a paper or poster can be found on the conference website. For any questions, please contact doctorants.icar@gmail.com + |
| ICOP-L2-2026 + | This is a friendly reminder that the deadline for submitting abstracts for the 2026 ICOP‑L2 Conference at Newcastle University is coming up very soon. 📅 Submission deadline is now 27th February (note the slightly extended deadline) If you’re planning to submit, we’d be very glad to receive your abstract. Please use the submission portal: https://forms.gle/rz7KruELWrzjVrFY6 The ICOP‑L2 Conference 2026 will take place at Newcastle University, UK, from 24–26 August 2026. Check out the conference website for details of our Keynote Speakers, workshops and Research Connect sessions. https://conferences.ncl.ac.uk/icop-l2-26/ We look forward to reading your submissions and hope to see many of you in the vibrant city of Newcastle this August! Come and meet the Geordies! Best wishes, Chris Leyland Newcastle University + |
| ICRA2020 + | Dear all, We would like to invite you to submit extended abstracts to the interdisciplinary workshop on human-robot handovers to be held in conjunction with the International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) 2020. Due to ICRA having been moved online, the organising committee of the workshop on human-robot (and robot-human) handovers decided to have the workshop on human-robot handovers take place virtually on the same date as originally planned. Please note that this workshop is deliberately designed to be interdisciplinary and targets researchers beyond robotics such as researchers in conversation analysis or similar analytical practices that work on the analysis of handovers or similar joint action tasks. * Date: Thursday, 4th of June 2020 * Time: tbd * Location: online * Submission deadline: May 08th * Notification due: May 15th Workshop URL: https://handovers.gitlab.io/icra2020-handovers/ == Overview: == Human-robot (and robot-human) handovers are a likely occurrence in many areas of robotics ranging from industrial human-robot collaboration to clinical settings where a robot may act as a scrub nurse. While progress has been made devising handover controllers for face-to-face laboratory setups, less effort went into real-world scenarios such as the surgical setting. For example, some scenarios may require robots to occasionally take the initiative such as a co-bot handing tools to a human co-worker which may guide an inexperienced co-worker in certain situations. Others, such as the surgical theatre setting, embody asymmetrical “master-slave” relationships, where overt robotic initiative is less appropriate. There, a differentiated understanding of the task at hand seems to be as important as the recognition of the surgeon’s intent. Can we conceive of a handover controller that is flexible enough to accommodate the majority of situations? What other differences will need to be addressed when moving from laboratory settings to real-world applications? Collaboration with humans has been called the next frontier in robotics, and handovers will play an important part. To address this challenge, this workshop brings together roboticists, HRI researchers, joint action specialists, and researchers from sociology and ethnomethodology that have analysed handover tasks. We are soliciting extended abstracts that are likely to generate interesting discussions with topics of interest include, but are not limited to: computational and/or robotic modelling of human-robot handovers* empirical studies on human-robot handovers* sensing for handover processes or closely related forms of joint-actions including force and tactile sensing communicative alignment and coordination during handovers or closely related forms of joint action sensorimotor communication (SMC) during handovers or closely related forms of joint action conversation analyses of human-human or human-robot handovers* studies using alternative analytical techniques such as behavioural coding analysing handover processes or other, closely related forms of joint actions cognitive modelling of handovers and other closely related forms of joint actions shared control or similar models of handovers or closely related processes *The term ’human-robot handovers’ is always meant to implicitly include ‘robot-human handovers’ == Submissions::= We invite the submission of extended abstracts of up to 2 pages. The formatting requirements of the extended abstracts should conform to those of IEEE/ICRA contributed papers. The submissions will be reviewed by the organisers. The precise format of presentation will be announced closer to the time. Authors may be invited to submit full-length manuscripts to a special issue in a leading journal in human-robot interaction such as the ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction. Submission URL: https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/ICRA2020 Invited Speakers: * Christian Heath (King’s College, London) * Aude Billard (EPFL Lausanne) * Anca Dragan (UC Berkeley) * Robert Haschke (University of Bielefeld, tbc) * Francesco Donnarumma (ISTC-CNR, Rome) * Tamara Lorenz (University of Cincinnati, tbc) * Rachid Alami (LAAS-CNR, Toulouse) * Dana Kulić (Monash University, Clayton) * Ali Shafti (Imperial College, London) Organizers: * Frank Förster (Queen Mary University of London & University of Hertfordshire) * Theodoros Stouraitis (University of Edinburgh) * Lorenzo Jamone (Queen Mary University of London) * Kaspar Althoefer (Queen Mary University of London) * Angelo Cangelosi (University of Manchester) * Matthias Kerzel (University of Hamburg) * Sethu Vijayakumar (University of Edinburgh) For questions please contact f.p.foerster at qmul.ac.uk + |
| IDS Fellowships 2024 + | The Leibniz-Institute for the German Language (IDS Mannheim) and Heidelberg University offer two fellowships for researchers in the areas of Interactional Linguistics, Conversation Analysis and Multimodal Interaction Analysis. Each fellowship includes a three months stay at one or both of the two institutions. Fellowships cover the travel expenses for an outward journey from the fellow’s home to Mannheim or Heidelberg and the return journey, three months of accommodation at the university guesthouse, a private workspace at one of the institutions, and access to the digital services of the host institution. It does not include a salary or an honorarium. We invite applications from researchers at all career stages (pre-doc, post-doc, senior). The fellowships are available to researchers who are not currently based in Germany. During their research stay, applicants are expected to work on a scientific project of their own related to the areas stated above. The project does not have to be designed specifically for the research stay. Applicants are expected to engage in scholarly exchange with researchers from the IDS and/or Heidelberg University who are working in the fellow’s fields of study, to participate in data sessions, and to give at least one lecture on their own research during their stay. Research stays in Mannheim/Heidelberg will be possible in the timeframe between May 2024 and May 2025 upon individual appointment with the hosts. Applications include (as pdf-files): • a CV including list of publications • a project proposal (max. two pages) • a motivation letter explaining why a research stay at the IDS Mannheim/Heidelberg University is expected to benefit the fellow’s scientific/professional advancement. The deadline for applications is April 26, 2024. Applications are to be addressed via email to: Prof. Dr. Arnulf Deppermann, IDS Mannheim (deppermann@ids-mannheim.de) Prof. Dr. Elwys De Stefani, Heidelberg University (elwys.destefani@rose.uni-heidelberg.de) + |
| IDS Lecture series Action formation and Action Ascription 2021 + | Lecture series on Action Formation and Action Ascription The talks in this series address one of the main questions in the social sciences, i.e. ”how people grasp the subjective meanings of each others’ actions” (Heritage, 1984: 57; Weber 1922/1978; Parsons 1937; Garfinkel 1967; Goffman 1971; Schütz/Luckmann 1973). Previous conversation analytic research on actions in social interaction has explored action formation, i.e. which contextual factors are relevant for choosing a specific format for doing requesting, questioning, assessing, apologizing etc. Only in the last decade scholars have turned their attention to action ascription as a fundamental problem for participants (Heritage 2012a,b; Levinson 2013; Fox/Heinemann 2017; Rossi 2018; Deppermann/Haugh in press). This series of talks will bring new insights into what factors contribute to the situated understanding of an action. They will deliver methodological and theoretical insights on action formation and ascription in social interaction in different languages. The Leibniz-Institute for the German Language (IDS Mannheim) invites you to attend a free international lecture series on Action Formation and Action Ascription. Lectures will be taking place between June 21 and October 11, 2021 via zoom. You can sign up for participation here: https://perso.ids-mannheim.de/anmeldung/en/329 We are looking forward to welcoming you! Arnulf Deppermann, Alexandra Gubina & Barbara Fox Program: * June 21, 6 p.m. CET: Pentti Haddington (Oulu, Finland): Noticing actions in UN military observer training * July 5, 6 p.m. CET: Tanya Stivers / Giovanni Rossi / Andrew Chalfoun (UCLA, US): Ambiguities in Action Ascription * July 19, 6 p.m. CET: Alexandra Gubina, Arnulf Deppermann (IDS Mannheim, Germany), Barbara Fox, Chase Wesley Raymond (Colorado, Boulder, US), Sandra Thompson (UCSB, US): “fallin apart that stupid cookie”: Declaratives of trouble as an interactional resource for managing agency and responsibility * August 16, 6 p.m. CE: Traci Walker / Isabel Windeatt (Sheffield, England): Action ascription in conversations with people with aphasia * September 13, 3 p.m. CET: Michael Haugh (University of Queensland, Australia): Offer responses and morality-in-interaction * September 20, 6 p.m. CET: Lorenza Mondada (Basel, Switzerland): Offering a taste at the market: stopping passers-by and transforming them into customers * September 27, 6 p.m. CET: Jörg Zinken (IDS Mannheim, Germany): Cross-linguistic aspects of action formation * October 4, 6 p.m. CET: Melisa Stevanovic (Helsinki, Finland) Proposal sequences in the conditions of deontic symmetry and asymmetry * October 11, 6 p.m. CET: Arnulf Deppermann / Axel Schmidt (IDS Mannheim, Germany) Emergent instructions: Collaborative development of performances in theatre rehearsals by directors and actors + |
| IDS Postdoc 2025 + | The Leibniz Institute for the German Language (IDS) in Mannheim, founded in 1964, is the central scientific institution for documenting and researching the German language in the present and recent history. The IDS has an annual budget of around 13.6 million euros and currently employs 220 staff members. It is part of the Leibniz Association, which includes 96 other non-university research and infrastructure institutions. At the IDS, in the Department of Pragmatics , the research project "Syntax and the Body," funded by the Swedish Research Council, is seeking to fill the following position starting October 1, 2025: Researcher (Post-Doc) (m/f/d) (Reference number 06/2025) with the regular weekly working hours of currently 31.6 hours (80%) The employment relationship is limited to six years. The classification will be based on personal qualifications and assigned tasks, up to salary group 13 according to the TV-L collective agreement. The project aims to investigate the interplay of linguistic and bodily resources in communicative action during social interaction, with a focus on comparing the relationships across different languages. This will be examined through a conversation-analytic and interactional linguistic approach, based on video recordings of conversations and other social events involving verbal interaction. Primarily, qualitative research methods will be used, supplemented by quantitative methods. We are looking for a researcher to investigate multimodal interaction, particularly in relation to the use of syntactic structures in coordination with various bodily resources, such as gaze, facial expression, object use, movement in space, etc. Your tasks will involve collecting and analyzing data from a Germanic language and a typologically different language (eg, a Romance language), based on independently developed research questions. Research planning and parts of data analysis will be carried out within an international project team, focusing on comparable phenomena in the languages studied in the project (Chinese, Estonian, French, Japanese, Swedish). You will regularly present the project results at (inter)national conferences and in publications, sometimes in collaboration with the international project partners. The project offers opportunities for academic qualification in an internationally oriented research institute. Please submit your comprehensive written application, including a cover letter, CV, and certificates (compiled in a single PDF document with a maximum size of 5 MB), along with a scientific article authored by you. Send your application by email, quoting the reference number, to the following address by June 1, 2025 : Leibniz Institute for the German Language (IDS) Human Resources Email: bewerbungen(at)ids-mannheim.de Interviews are scheduled for June 2025 and will be held via Zoom in English. For further content-related inquiries, please contact the department head, Prof. Dr. Arnulf Deppermann, via email at deppermann(at)ids-mannheim.de . + |
