Advertisement

Rethinking Bodies and Objects in Social Interaction: A Multimodal and Multisensorial Approach to Tasting

  • Lorenza MondadaEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reflects on the contributions of ethnomethodology and multimodal conversation analysis to current debates about materiality, including both bodies and objects as they are mobilized, made accountable, seen and interpreted by participants within social interaction. Video studies have enabled a new detailed analytical gaze on multimodality – including language, the body, and the manipulation of objects. In this chapter, I show that multimodality can be farther developed by taking into account how sensoriality is intersubjectively achieved in social interaction. The chapter discusses the conceptual, analytical, and methodological challenges that this constitutes for the approach of materialities in human action. Using the video recording of a tasting session as an exemplary empirical case, the analysis shows how participants orchestrate their bodies as both communicating bodies and sensing bodies. Moreover, it shows how the multimodally organized activity of tasting manipulates different types of objects, materials to be tasted, and artifacts supporting tasting. Taking into account not only the multimodality of interactional exchanges (in which embodied and linguistic resources secure a form of intersubjectivity based on the mutual understanding of the participants), but also their multisensoriality (in which the bodies access, feel, and experience the world) invites thinking about a different form of intersubjectivity, in which bodies sense other bodies sensing, and align with other objects within various spatial and material configurations.

Keywords

Social interaction Ethnomethodology Conversation analysis Body Materiality Language Multimodality Multisensoriality Tasting Video 

References

  1. Bennett, Jane. 2010. Vibrant Matter. A Political Ecology of Things. Durham: Duke UP.Google Scholar
  2. Buscher, Monika. 2004. Social life under the microscope? Sociological Research Online, 10(2), <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/b_scher.html>. Downloaded on June 21, 2018.
  3. Clark, Andy. 2008. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension, Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  4. Classen, Constance. 1993. Worlds of sense: Exploring the senses in history and across cultures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Coole, D., and S. Frost, eds. 2010. New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Durham: Duke UP.Google Scholar
  6. Csordas, T. J. 2008. Intersubjectivity and intercorporeality. Subjectivity 22: 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Day, D., and J. Wagner. 2015. Objects as tools for talk. In Interacting with objects. Language, materiality and social activity, eds. M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, and M. Rauniomaa, p. 101–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. De Stefani, Elwys. 2015. Establishing joint attention towards commercial objects in self-service stores. In Interacting with objects. Language, materiality and social activity, eds. Maurice Nevile, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann, and Mirka Rauniomaa. Amsterdam: Benjamins, p. 275–294.Google Scholar
  9. Egbert, M., and A. Deppermann, eds. 2012. Hearing aids communication, Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
  10. Fele, G. 2016. Il paradosso del gusto. SocietàMutamentoPolitica, 7 (14): 151–174.Google Scholar
  11. Folkers, Andreas. 2013. Was ist neu am neuen Materialismus? In Critical Matter. Diskussionen eines neuen Materialismus, eds. Tobias Goll, Daniel Keil, Thomas Telios. Münster: assemblage, p. 17–35.Google Scholar
  12. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Goodwin, Charles. 1981. Conversational Organization. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  14. Goodwin, C. 1994. Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, 96 (3): 606–633.Google Scholar
  15. Goodwin, C. 1999. Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7 (1–2): 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Practices of seeing: Visual analysis. In Handbook of Visual Analysis, eds. Theo van Leeuwen, and Carey Jewitt, p. 157–182. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Haddington, P., L. Mondada, and M. Nevile, eds. 2013. Interaction and mobility. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Heath, Christian. 1986. Body movement and speech in medical interaction. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  19. Heath, Christian. 2012. The Dynamics of Auction. Social Interaction and the Sale of Fine Art and Antiques. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  20. Heath, C., and D. vom Lehn 2004. Configuring Reception: (Dis-) Regarding the ‘Spectator’ in Museums and Galleries. Theory, Culture & Society 21: 43–65.Google Scholar
  21. Heath, Christian, and P. Luff 2000. Technology in action. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  22. Heath, Christian, J. Hindmarsh, and P. Luff 2010. Video in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Hirschauer, Stefan. 2004. Praktiken und ihre Körper. Über materielle Partizipanden des Tuns. In Doing Culture. Zum Begriff der Praxis in der gegenwärtigen soziologischen Theorie, eds. Karl H. Hörning and Julia Reuter, p. 73–91. Bielefeld: Transkript.Google Scholar
  24. Jefferson, Gail. 2017. Talking About Troubles in Conversation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  25. Kearney, Richard, and B. Treanor 2015. Carnal Hermeneutics, Fordham UP.Google Scholar
  26. Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  27. Kidwell, M. 2005. Gaze as Social Control: How Very Young Children Differentiate “The Look” From a “Mere Look” by Their Adult Caregivers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38 (4): 417–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, Activity, 3–4: 228–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liberman, Kenneth (2013). More Studies in Ethnomethodology. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  30. Meyer, C., J. Streeck, J. Scott Jordan, eds. 2017. Intercorporeality. Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  31. Mol, Annemarie. 2003. The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mondada, Lorenza. 2006a. Video recording as the reflexive preservation-configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In Video Analysis, eds. Hubert Knoblauch, Jürgen Raab, Hans-Georg Soeffner and Bernt Schnettler, p. 51–67. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
  33. Mondada, L. 2006b. Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8: 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mondada, L. 2007. Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9 (2): 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mondada, L. 2009. Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics. 41: 1977–1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations. In Embodied Interaction, Language and Body in the Material World, eds. Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin and Curtis LeBaron, p. 207–226. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  37. Mondada, L. 2014a. The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65: 137–156.Google Scholar
  38. Mondada, Lorenza 2014b. Pointing, talk and the bodies: Reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In From gesture in conversation to visible utterance in action, eds. Mandana Seyfeddinipur and Marianne Gullberg, p. 95–124. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  39. Mondada, L. 2016. Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20 (2): 2–32.Google Scholar
  40. Mondada, L. 2018a. Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction. Challenges for transcribing multimodality. ROLSI, 51:1: 85–106.Google Scholar
  41. Mondada, Lorenza, 2018b. Visual practices: video studies, multimodality and multisensoriality. In Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin, ed. Donald Favareau, p. 304–325. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.Google Scholar
  42. Nevile, M. 2015. The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction, ROLSI, 48:2: 121–151.Google Scholar
  43. Nevile, M., P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, and M. Rauniomaa, eds. 2015. Interacting with objects. Language, materiality and social activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. Reckwitz, A. 2002. Towards a theory of social practice: A development in cultural theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2): 243–262.Google Scholar
  45. Robinson, J., and T. Stivers. 2001. Achieving activity transitions in primary-care encounters: From history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27 (2): 253–298.Google Scholar
  46. Rossano, Federico. 2012. Gaze in conversation. In The handbook of conversation analysis, eds. Jack Sidnell and Tanya Stivers, p. 308–329. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Schatzki, Theodore R. 1996 Social Practices. A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  48. Schegloff, Emanuel Abraham. 1984. On some gestures’ relation to talk. In Structures of social action, eds. J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  49. Shapiro, Lawrence. 2011, Embodied Cognition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. 2009. The Corporeal turn. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  51. Sudnow, David. 1972. Temporal parameters of interpersonal observation. In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. David Sudnow, p. 259–279. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Thrift, Nigel. 2007. Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Turner, Stephen. 1994 The Social Theory of Practices. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  54. Vannini, P. ed. 2015. Non-Representational Methodologies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Wiggins, S. 2002. Talking with your mouth full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. ROLSI, 35:3: 311–336.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BaselBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations