In:Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond multitasking
Edited by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada and Maurice Nevile
[Not in series 187] 2014
► pp. 137–166
Negotiating favourable conditions for resuming suspended activities
Published online: 4 September 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.05sut
https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.05sut
This paper examines how participants in multiactivity situations are able to resume an ongoing activity that becomes temporarily suspended in favour of a locally emergent, competing line of action. Detailed analyses of video data from English and Finnish everyday interactions show that resumptions are not achieved unproblematically at the first suitable transition-relevant slot but involve a gradual, stepwise process of multimodal negotiations, where participants first collaboratively establish favourable conditions for resumption. It is argued that these negotiations represent a local instance of multiactivity in practice, i.e. where organising multiactivity becomes a demonstrable concern for the participants. The gradualness of resumptions provides participants with an interactional resource that can be exploited to flexibly manage activity transitions in complex multiactivity situations.
References (49)
Auer, P. (2005). Delayed self-repairs as a structuring device for complex turns in conversation. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 75–102). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Beach, W.A. (1995a). Conversation analysis: “Okay” as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In S.J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communication (pp. 121–161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
. (1995b). Preserving and constraining options: “Okays” and “official” priorities in medical interviews. In B. Morris, & R. Chenail (Eds.), Talk of the clinic: Explorations in the analysis of medical and therapeutic discourse (pp. 259–290). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bolden, G. (2006). Little words that matter: Discourse markers “so” and “oh” and the doing of other-attentiveness in social interaction. Journal of Communication, 56, 661–688.
. (2008). “So what’s up?”: Using the discourse marker “so” to launch conversational business. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(3), 302–327.
. (2009). Implementing incipient actions: The discourse marker ‘so’ in English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(5), 974–998.
Deppermann, A., Schmitt, R., & Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: Contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 1700–1718.
Drew, P. (2005). Conversation analysis. In K.L. Fitch, & R.E. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction (pp. 71–102). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Du Bois, J.W., Schuetze-Coburn, S., Cumming, S., & Paolino, D. (1993). An outline of discourse transcription. In J.A. Edwards, & M.D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (pp. 45–87). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Duvallon, O., & Routarinne, S. (2005). Parenthesis as a resource in the grammar of conversation. In A. Hakulinen, & M. Selting (Eds.), Syntax and lexis in conversation: Studies on the use of linguistic resources in talk-in-interaction (pp. 45–74). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ford, C.E., Thompson, S.A., & Drake, V. (2012). Bodily-visual practices and turn continuation. Discourse Processes, 49, 192–212.
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: The Free Press.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.
. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. (2003). Pointing as situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M.H. (1992a). Context, activity and participation. In P. Auer, & A. di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 77–99). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
. (1992b). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147–189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283–307.
Haddington, P., & Kääntä, L. (Eds.). (2012). Kieli, keho ja vuorovaikutus. Multimodaalinen näkökulma sosiaaliseen toimintaan [Language, body and interaction: A multimodal perspective into social action]. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Hakulinen, A., Vilkuna, M., Korhonen, M., Koivisto, V., Heinonen, T.R., & Alho, I. (2004). Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Available at: [URL] URN:ISBN:978-952-5446-35-7 (referenced 22th May 2012)
Heinonen, M. (2002). Ni(in), ni tota ja tota ni paluun merkkeinä puhelinkeskustelussa. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Helsinki.
Jefferson, G. (1972). Side sequences. In D. Sudnow (Ed.), Studies in social interaction (pp. 294–338). New York: Free Press.
. (1978). Sequential aspects of storytelling in conversation. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction (pp. 219–248). New York: Academic Press.
Keisanen, T. & Rauniomaa, M. (2012). The organization of participation and contingency in prebeginnings of request sequences. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 1–29.
LeBaron, C. & 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.
Local, J. (2004). Getting back to prior talk: and-uh(m) as a back-connecting device in British and American English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen, & C.E. Ford (Eds.), Sound patterns in interaction: Cross-linguistic studies from conversation (pp. 377–400). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Mazeland, H., & Huiskes, M. (2001). Dutch ‘but’ as a sequential conjunction: Its use as a resumption marker. In M. Selting, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Studies in interactional linguistics (pp. 141–169). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Modaff, D.P. (2003). Body movement in the transition from opening to task in doctor-patient interviews. In P. Glenn, C.D. LeBaron, & J. Mandelbaum (Eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper (pp. 411–422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mondada, L. (2006). Participants’ online analysis and multimodal practices: projecting the end of the turn and the closing of the sequence. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 117–129.
. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9, 194–225.
. (2008). Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: Videotaping institutional telephone calls [88 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), Art. 39. Retrieved Feb 28, 2014from [URL].
. (2011). The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin, & C. LeBaron (Eds.), Embodied interaction. Language and body in the material world (pp. 207–226). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nevile, M. (2012). Interaction as distraction in driving: A body of evidence. Semiotica, 191, 169–196.
Park, I. (2010). Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3283–3299.
Rauniomaa, M. (2008). Recovery through repetition: Returning to prior talk and taking a stance in American-English and Finnish conversations. (Doctoral dissertation). Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B85. Oulu: Oulu University Press.
Robinson, J.D. & Stivers, T. (2001). Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient encounters: From history-taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 253–298.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sorjonen, M.-L. (2001). Responding in conversation: A study of response particles in Finnish. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction. Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sutinen, M. (2008). But and anyway resumptions as a strategy for managing digressions in conversational storytelling and other extended turns. (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Oulu.
Swerts, M. (1998). Filled pauses as markers of discourse structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 30, 485–496.
Szymanski, M.H. (1999). Re-engaging and dis-engaging talk in activity. Language in Society, 28, 1–23.
Cited by (16)
Cited by 16 other publications
Kohonen-Aho, Laura & Anna Vatanen
Hoffmann, Sabine & Giolo Fele
2024. Dealing with missing participants in the opening phases of a videoconference. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 34:3 ► pp. 393 ff.
Yagi, Junichi
Hofstetter, Emily & Jessica Robles
Pelikan, Hannah & Emily Hofstetter
Rautiainen, Iira, Pentti Haddington & Antti Kamunen
Vatanen, Anna & Pentti Haddington
Siitonen, Pauliina, Marika Helisten, Maarit Siromaa, Mirka Rauniomaa & Mari Holmström
DeLand, Michael F.
Hofstetter, Emily
Helisten, Marika
Kim, Kyoungmi & Jo Angouri
Golato, Andrea
2018. Turn-initialnajain German. In Between turn and sequence [Studies in Language and Social Interaction, 31], ► pp. 413 ff.
Oshima, Sae
2018. Embodiment of activity progress. In Time in Embodied Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 293], ► pp. 261 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
