being mobile: interaction on the move

02_Haddington_Mondada_Nevile.pod 113-01-03 14:54:56 -fk- fk

PART IIntroduction


Being mobile: Interaction on the move 3

Pentti Haddington, Lorenza Mondada and Maurice Nevile

Being mobile: Interaction on the move

1. Introduction1

This book considers details of language, embodied conduct, and spatial andmaterial orientation, for interaction in mobile situations. Mobility is a ubiqui-tous feature of our everyday and working lives. We are continuously on themove: we walk, we ride, we drive, we fly, we sail. We move from room toroom within our homes and workplaces. We use modes and systems oftransportation that allow us to travel long distances. In many ways mobilityenables us to organise and conduct our personal and working activities,and so relate to others and establish and maintain social networks. As thechapters show, features of interaction can be inextricably intertwined withmobility, for example orienting to demands of mobility, coordinating withmobility, or enabling and accomplishing mobility. We talk and act to negoti-ate our way around shops, the streets of our suburbs, town centres, and cities.Moving from one place to another might make some activity relevant orpossible; alternatively, the activity itself might be constituted by mobility.Some interactions and activities are carried out while on the move, whileothers might facilitate or control mobility, or make mobility possible. Mobil-ity is germane to social action and participation in social life. We are alwaysmobile for some reason, and we engage with and understand the world aswe move through it. We are also very often mobile together with others, andeven when we move alone we can very rarely do so fully independently, orwithout regard to others or to what is happening around us. Mobility there-fore is not just abstract motion, but becomes meaningful as, in and throughsocial action and interaction (see also Urry 2007).

The book brings together studies that examine in their rich detail thepractices of social interaction for experiencing and accomplishing mobilityin naturally-occurring settings. That is, we are interested in how people inter-act, and what is it they actually do, in order to be mobile, or when they aremobile, or to integrate their own or others’ mobility, or to manage mobilitywith other activities. The studies here ask, for example, what kinds of socialactions make mobility possible, and in turn, how does mobility impact socialaction, and processes of interaction? How do people interact as they attend

1 We are grateful to Peter Auer and Mirka Rauniomaa for reading and commentingearlier drafts of the introduction.

user

Sticky Note

PLEASE NOTE: This is the introduction chapter to the book 'Interaction and Mobility', edited by P.Haddington, L.Mondada and M.Nevile, (2013, De Gruyter). It is a pre-publication proof copy, and so contains some slight errors (e.g. typos) and inconsistencies which are not in the final version. Please ignore these. The final version of the chapter is available at https://www.degruyter.com/view/product/183760


4 Pentti Haddington, Lorenza Mondada and Maurice Nevile

and respond to the passing environment around them? The studies covervarious forms of mobility across a wide range of settings. They focus onmobility as situated and occurring in real-life real-time local (here-and-now)contexts, and in immediate spatial and material circumstances, such as play-ing games inside the home, shopping in a supermarket, visiting a museum,walking and driving in suburban streets, teaching dance steps, and flying overa battlefield. Mobility might involve a person’s body directly (e.g. for walking,dance, creative performance), or bodies together, or the body itself mightbe relatively sedentary and mobility is somehow mediated or supported (e.g.when driving cars or flying planes).

Just what do we mean by ‘mobility’? The studies here understand mobilityto involve movement of people’s whole bodies, or of other kinds of partici-pant (e.g. vehicles, video game avatars), which recognisably change from onelocation or position to another. Participants in interaction are, for example,moving left and right, moving to or from, moving towards or away, movingin front or behind or besides, moving around or over, moving together orapart, moving across or through, moving up or down, moving inside andoutside, moving in patterns and shapes, stopping and starting, and so on.In particular, the studies show how all this movement is experienced andaccomplished in and through social interaction.

Consequently, by ‘mobility’ we do not mean small movements of parts ofthe body, such as the hands (e.g. gesturing, handling objects) or head (nod-ding), or moments when the body is generally shifting within a stablelocation (e.g. in a rocking chair) or only changing its postural orientation. Wealso do not mean movements of objects from one person to another. But, asthe studies in this book show in detail, mobility might embrace and be con-stituted through such smaller movements and (re)positioning of the body,such as turning the head or shifting gaze, re-directing the shoulders or feet,pointing, leaning (forward, backward, sideways) or re-arranging posture, ormoving the arms and legs. Indeed, such movements, as features of embodiedconduct, have been considered in numerous studies of social interaction for their significance in creating and understanding meaningful actions(Ch. Goodwin 1981, 2003a; Schegloff 1984, 1998; Luff and Heath 1999;Mondada 2007a; Stivers 2008; Streeck, Ch. Goodwin and LeBaron 2011).The studies collected here build strongly upon this research on embodiedinteraction.

In this introductory chapter, we outline the background, rationale andsome core aspects and interests of the analytical approach informing thestudies collected here. The authors share a concern for uncovering thenature and organisation of interaction and social action. They examine the



practices and processes of understanding by which participants in interac-tion coordinate talk and other embodied activities jointly to create and makesense of what it is they are doing, of what is going on. Their data are there-fore audio and video recordings of naturally-occurring interactions in real-life settings and situations, from which researchers develop highly detailedtranscriptions or other forms of representation. The authors come from dif-ferent disciplines and influences, for example from sociology, linguistics, andgeography. However, the authors are all in various ways influenced by theinsights, principles and methods of conversation analysis and ethnometho-dology, and ideas of the sociologist Erving Goffman (1963, 1967, 2010[1971], 1981).

Major sources of inspiration come from pioneering studies on socialinteraction, initiated in the 1960s. Most relevantly, they are indebted to Goff-man’s thinking on the ‘interaction order’, and also participation, role andidentity. Goffman defined a social situation “as an environment of mutual

monitoring possibilities, anywhere within which an individual finds himselfaccessible to the naked senses of all others who are ‘present’ and simi-larly find them accessible to him” (Goffman 1964: 135) [italics added]. Atapproximately the same period, Harold Garfinkel (1967, 1984, 2002, 2005,2008) developed ethnomethodology with an interest in the ordinary com-mon-sense knowledge, practices and processes of reasoning, or the rule-governed behaviour, on which members of a society rely to make senseand to create order in their everyday lives. Garfinkel was concerned withmembers’ methods, that is, with how people act as members of a society byorienting to the never-ceasing demands jointly to construct experience inways that are recognisable and intelligible. Through their local (there-and-then) and demonstrable (publicly available to others) practices, people areconstantly and routinely working together to accomplish social activities,and for these activities to be seen and accepted for what they are (for intro-ductions see Heritage 1984; Francis and Hester 2004, and later discussionsin this chapter). Against this intellectual background, conversation analysisemerged in the late 1960s as a sociological approach to the study of talkand its contribution for social interaction. A basic principle of conversationanalysis is that naturally-occurring interaction is systematically organised,and that this organisation is both discoverable and significant for under-standing social order. The origins of conversation analysis are typically con-nected with the thinking of Harvey Sacks, and especially his course lecturesat the University of California between 1964 and 1972 (Sacks 1992). Sackshad worked with both Goffman and Garfinkel, but he also worked closelywith Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson, and it was this collaboration



that produced a ground-breaking study on the organisation of conversation(Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). Subsequent studies by these authorslaid the foundation for conversation analysis and its development. Conver-sation analysis has since become an important methodological and empiri-cal tool for analysing in close detail how people use language, embodied con-duct (e.g. gesture) and other resources, to interact and produce andunderstand social actions, and so create order in social life, in both every-day and institutional settings (for introductions see ten Have 2007; Schegloff2007; Hutchby and Wooffitt 2008).

Such an analytic approach for investigating interaction and mobilityemphasises attention to actual data of social life, of real people’s activities inreal social situations, of how they talk and act relative to emerging contingen-cies in real time. So, it is not sufficient to rely on imagined or rememberedexperiences and phenomena (for example in interviews and questionnaires,or field notes), and it is not helpful to begin or rely on pre-defined or the-oretical constructs and presumptions of what people do, or should do. Thestudies here therefore examine real-life instances to see how people actuallyinteract as they orient to mobility, sometimes in contexts of specialist expert-ise. They examine what practices, actions and understandings people use forbeing mobile, and how these are deployed moment-to-moment in sequentiallyunfolding interaction. The authors explore in close detail how people man-age and accomplish mobility activities through a range of resources, such astalk, the body, objects and other available features of the material and spatialsurround. The focus is on how people interact to organise their own mobil-ity with others, or to coordinate and control the mobility of others.

In the following sections, we present the essential background on whichthis book is based. Section (2.1) highlights major issues in conversationanalysis as a methodology for studying naturalistic data. Section (2.2.) pres-ents key analytic phenomena for conversation analysis, its distinctive con-ception of practice, action, and sequence (2.2.1 and 2.2.2), how embo-died (2.2.3) and material (2.2.4) resources organise social interaction, andapproaches to the body in its environment (3.). We then outline interests andquestions specifically concerning interaction and mobility. In this sense, werevisit some methodological challenges (4.1) and we explore some concep-tual issues raised by mobility (4.2), before connecting to mobility studies ingeneral (5.).



2. Analysing interaction and social action

2.1. Methodological background

With its focus on naturally-occurring data, conversation analysis examineshow participants in interaction design and coordinate their actions to meetthe contingencies of the moment and to be recognised and carried off forwhat they are, for particular social ends, and with real social consequences.Fundamental to conversation analysis is the idea that participants exhibit inthe design and timing of their own talk and conduct their understanding andtreatment of others’ prior talk and conduct. Analysts therefore focus on thesequential development of interaction, on seeing what happens and whathappens next. So, the basic guiding analytic question is “why that now?”(Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Schegloff 2007: 2). This invites consideration ofthe social action underway and to show how the design and timing of talkand other conduct is sensitive to its placement in the sequential organisationof real-time interaction and activity. The analysis aims to show what someparticular detail of talk or conduct reveals about how a participant, there andthen, understood and acted on what just happened, and made some newcontribution by doing something next. Analysts ask, how do participants ininteraction, in situ, determine and respond to what the other person is doingby saying this or that, in just those words, in just this way, at just this momentin this interaction (Schegloff 2006)?

The analytic approach is qualitative, inductive and strictly empirical. Con-versation analysts are committed to using audio/video recordings of nat-urally-occurring interaction. These recordings provide the main data andthey are replayed repeatedly for getting a detailed understanding of analysedinteractional moments. Analysts support their investigations with highlydetailed transcriptions, and other forms of representation, which make vis-ible important aspects of how interaction is jointly produced and emerges inreal time. Conversation analysts have developed transcription conventions,modified over the years from a system originally developed by Gail Jeffer-son (e.g. see ten Have 2007; Jefferson 2004). Importantly, by recoveringthe minutia of interactional organisation, transcripts also provide others thepossibility to check the validity of claims and findings (Sacks 1984).

Although conversation analysts initially focussed mainly on talk, increas-ingly they use video data and so their transcriptions have also come to indi-cate multimodal details, such as gesture and other embodied conduct, andother relevant circumstances, such as participants’ use of objects and tech-nology, or their bodily orientation – not much, however, their movements



through space, a phenomenon for which this book explores various repre-sentational solutions. The advantage of video data is that analysts are able toconsider aspects of interaction often unavailable in other forms of data,but which are demonstrably relevant to participants. Transcriptions of videodata, together with screen shots, show how such multimodal and semioticresources, and talk, have a complementary relationship in meaning-makingfor social interaction. We now have a growing body of rigorous analysesof the moment-by-moment sequential organisation of interaction, includingtalk and multimodal conduct, in a range of everyday and work settings (seebelow the section on multimodality, 2.2.3).

The ways in which talk is transcribed do not simply provide the content,but also show precisely how talk is produced. The aim is to provide sufficientdetail so that analysts can grasp the processes of interaction, thereby captur-ing the here-and-now detail that was available to, and used by, the partici-pants themselves. Conversation analytic transcriptions do not show gram-matically correct or standardised sentences that speakers should have said, buttry to represent talk as it is actually produced by the participants, includ-ing hitches, hesitations, non-standard constructions, and incomplete words.Transcriptions also indicate the particularities of speech production, mostlyrelated to its temporal and incremental unfolding, for example, audible in-breaths and out-breaths, details of intonation, relative speed and loudness oftalk, u(h)ms and uhs, the presence and length of pauses, and moments of over-lapping (simultaneous) talk. Transcriptions also note details of the recipient’s

conduct, for example the presence of response tokens such as mhm, uh huh

or yeah. This level of detail is important. Conversation analytic studies haveshown how such features of talk are significant for the participants them-selves. They can be indicative of how participants understand and contributeto what is happening and thereby impact the nature and course of interac-tion, and ultimately what the participants do.

The rationale behind detailed transcription is that if all talk is ordered thenone cannot dismiss any of its aspects as being insignificant or unworthy ofanalysis – so long as something is demonstrably oriented to by the par-ticipants and consequential for the organisation of the interaction (Sacks,Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). It is worth noting though that analysts usetranscriptions in which the level of granularity can vary. Analysts’ decisionsfor what to include, and how to do so, are usually informed by the analysedinteractional phenomena, by the specific participants’ orientations towardthe phenomena, and also by considering what is important for scholarlycommunicative purposes, for example in a publication. Nevertheless, thebasic idea remains the same: minute transcriptional details are important for



showing how participants produce, attend and respond to various interac-tional and social actions and demands.

In the next sections, we identify and explain some key phenomena andnotions for studies in conversation analysis and ethnomethodology. We clar-ify especially how the existing work in these fields is important and relevantfor analysing participants’ social conduct in situations of mobility, and inturn how these fields can be enriched by such analyses.

2.2. A distinctive analytic mentality

Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis have developed theirapproach by demonstrating the constitutive role of social practices, actionsand activities, as these are organised sequentially and in a situated manner.This focus produces the distinctive ‘analytic mentality’ that characterisesthese approaches and on which the chapters of this book are based. In thissection, we highlight some fundamental assumptions which concern thefocus on practice (2.2.1.), the importance of sequential organisation ofactions (2.2.2.), the complexity of the linguistic and embodied resourcesmarshalled by participants (2.2.3), as well as the complexity of the settingsanalysed by newer studies which have begun to take into account not onlylanguage, the body, but also objects and technologies and how they feature ininteraction (2.2.4). This existing body of research is the foundation on whichan approach to interaction and mobility can be developed.

2.2.1. Interactional Practices

The focus on practice as constitutive of social order was introduced by eth-nomethodology (Garfinkel 1967), offering a radically alternative account tothe problem of order in sociology. First, this praxeological primacy producesa view of “the objective reality of social facts as an on-going accomplishmentof the concerted activities of daily life” (Garfinkel 1967: vii). The Durkhei-mian view of social facts as ‘exterior’ and ‘coercive’ is respecified by Garfin-kel who shows, first, that they are the product of the incessant work of thesocial members, and thus a constant practical realisation. In other words,‘society’ is made up of ordinary social activities, such as chatting, havingdinner together, crossing the street, participating in a meeting, and so on.Second, this practical work is systematically ordered: instead of explainingthe orderly character of social practices by invoking other dimensions onwhich it would depend, like the interiorisation of norms, representations orvalues, Garfinkel shows that social practices are endogenously organised.



This means that social practices are locally ordered, produced in a methodical

and accountable way, that is, publicly and mutually recognisable, within theircontext and its specificities. In other words, social activities are produced sothat they are intelligible for others and enable others to participate in them.Activities do not just happen: they are made to happen in a meaningful way.“Methods” are the recurrent and systematic practices through which partici-pants organise their action; they are both situated – that is, adjusted to thespecificities of the context – and general – that is, systematic and recurrent.This methodical aspect of social actions makes them meaningful, recognis-able, intelligible – that is: accountable.

On the one hand, members treat this achievement of social activity as ataken-for-granted, tacit, phenomenon. The work it relies on gets describedand topicalised only when something goes wrong, when normative expec-tations are broken, when intelligibility is made opaque. Under normal, ordi-nary circumstances, this work is “seen but unnoticed” (Garfinkel [1967]1984, 36) – in the sense that it is not commented upon, but is tacitlytaken into consideration (oriented to) in the organisation of conduct, i.e. inpeople’s methodical and rational choices making their actions accountable.On the other hand, the analytical task of ethnomethodology is to turn themethods that achieve the order of everyday social life, as well as other pro-fessional and institutional activities, into an object of study. Thus, the taskis to uncover these methods that produce the orderly character of situatedpractice. These methods are analysed in both ethnomethodology and con-versation analysis, but with different emphases. The former tends to focuson the local specificities of action – its indexicality – and the latter on the sys-tematic feature of action.

Both aspects are central for the exploration of mobility in interaction:most often, mobile actions are taken-for-granted and unnoticed by partici-pants, although they carefully adjust and coordinate their interaction withrespect to their mobility or to the rich contingencies of their mobile environ-ment. This detailed way in which participants achieve mobile actions relieson the systematic practices by which they organise their conduct and under-standing. This is precisely what conversation analysis has been developingover the years, insisting on the careful examination of micro-practices inorder to show how they are systematically organised and socially significantand constitutive.



2.2.2. Actions and sequences in interaction

When people interact with each other, they produce social actions, they dothings to engage with others, to participate in and construct interaction. Per-haps the most important resource for producing actions is talk. People canfor example ask questions, make requests and promises, tease or directothers, show that they have noticed something or recognised and under-stood other actions and events. People can design their talk, for exampleprosodically, so that it expresses a stance or a standpoint as part of someaction. Prosody can also be used to indicate how some action is sequentiallyconnected to the overall emerging context, to project the next action or todisplay that an action is complete. In addition to talk, interactants can alsouse a broad array of other semiotic and multimodal resources for produc-ing actions and for recognising and responding to actions. These can be, forexample, gestures and other forms of embodied conduct, as well as manipu-lations of objects (see section 2.2.3.). Therefore, as Schegloff (1996a: 167)has noted, one of the main questions of conversation analysis is what actionis being accomplished? Conversation analysts ground their analyses in theinterlocutors’ ‘reality’, their talk and other conduct that they themselves pro-duce, and which is recognised and manifestly understood by others. Socialactions are therefore seen to receive their interactional and social meaningsin the situated and local context in which they emerge and are produced.Analyses involve detailed attention to how an action is produced. This meansthat analyses focus on what an action is recognisably designed to do when itis produced in a particular way: how is it designed linguistically, how gesturesor other embodied features are mobilised, and how other semiotic andcontextual features (materials, technologies, objects, space) are used asresources.

However, conversation analysis also maintains that no instances of talk oraction should be looked at in isolation (see e.g. Schegloff 1996b). Focusingmerely on the design of an action is not sufficient for determining what it isdemonstrably and recognisably accomplishing in the situation in which it isproduced. Rather, what a spoken utterance is doing at a specific moment andin a specific context (Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Schegloff 2007) is negotiatedby participants in the sequential context of interaction. Consequently, ana-lysts – similarly to participants themselves – pay attention to the organisationof actions as they unfold sequentially and temporally in interaction. Analysescan attend to, on the one hand, how an action builds on just prior actions andevents and thereby displays a member’s analysis and understanding of thejust prior actions or events (i.e. an action is shaped by sequential context



[Heritage 1997: 162]). On the other hand, analysts can also study how anaction sets up expectations, projects or even makes relevant that some nextaction should follow (see e.g. Schegloff 1972, 2007). An action thereby cre-ates, shapes or even renews the sequential context (see Heritage 1997: 162).

Interactional conduct is organised such that participants “line up” actionsinto meaningful sequences in order to constitute activities. Such lined-upactions frequently form patterned conduct, such as basic two-unit sequencescalled adjacency pairs. In adjacency pairs, the actions occur adjacently toeach other and are treated as one projecting the other, and building the nor-mative expectation of the next (see Schegloff and Sacks 1973; Sacks 1987[1973]: 55; Schegloff 2007). It is this organisation of actions into sequencesthat provides a context for members to publicly display their intersubjectiveunderstandings of talk and embodied conduct (see also Heritage 1984: 259).It also provides an analytic vantage point to observe participants’ reasoning,practices and procedures. Sequentially unfolding interaction is also the localein which everyday social life is constructed and negotiated, correctedand instructed, moment-to-moment, step-by-step. Sequences, as Schegloff(2007: 2) aptly puts it, are the vehicle for organising actions to accomplishsocial activities.

2.2.3. Multimodal resources and the body in interaction

We have seen that in order to organise and coordinate interaction in detail,participants exploit a variety of resources, with which they produce socialactions not only as ordered, but also as publicly and mutually intelligible(accountable, Garfinkel 1967). Even if ethnomethodology and conversationanalysis have never been interested in these resources per se (Sacks 1984),their focus on how interactional order is accomplished has produced a sub-stantial understanding of the linguistic and, later, the embodied resourcesthat participants use.

The initial fundamental work on the turn-taking machinery and sequenceorganisation was based on audio recordings, and thus has explored in depththe resources of talk-in-interaction. This work has been further developed ininteractional linguistics, with special emphasis on phonetic, syntactic, lexicaland prosodic resources that speakers use for interactively formatting bothturns at talk and social actions (Couper-Kuhlen and Selting 2001; Hakulinenand Selting 2005). The range of resources considered has been expandingwith the use of video, making available not only how people talk but alsoaspects of their embodied behaviour. This has produced an interest inthe way in which these multimodal resources (talk, gesture, gaze, facial



expressions, body postures and movements, manipulations of objects, etc.)are combined in the creation and understanding of meaningful socialactions.

The detailed consideration of multimodal resources depends in a crucialway on the technologies for documenting social action. As the majority ofthe first studies in conversation analysis indeed used audio recordings, it isno accident that the first systematic analyses were based on data collectedfrom telephone conversations. By using such data the analyst could be cer-tain that participants were not relying on their mutual visual access. AsSchegloff (2002: 288) put it,

for studying co-present interaction with sound recording alone risked missingembodied resources for interaction (gesture, posture, facial expression, physicallyimplemented ongoing activities, and the like), which we knew the interactantswove into both the production and the interpretation of conduct, but which we asanalysts would have no access to. With the telephone data, the participants didnot have access to one another’s bodies either, and this disparity was no longer anissue.

Nevertheless, the use of video began very early on in the history of conver-sation analysis. As early as 1970, in Philadelphia, Charles and Marjorie Har-ness Goodwin carried out film recordings of everyday dinner conversationsand other social encounters. After 1973, these recordings were used by Jef-ferson, Sacks and Schegloff in research seminars and then also in publishedpapers. In 1975, at the Annual Meeting of the American AnthropologicalAssociation, Schegloff presented a paper co-authored with Sacks, who hadbeen killed a few weeks earlier in a car accident, on ‘home position’ (laterpublished as Sacks and Schegloff, 2002). This was an early attempt todescribe bodily action systematically. In 1977, Charles Goodwin presentedhis dissertation at the Annenberg School of Communications of Philadelp-hia (later published as Ch. Goodwin 1981). The dissertation was based onapproximately 50 hours of videotaped conversations in various settings (Ch.Goodwin 1981: 33). A little later, in Britain, Christian Heath published abook (1986) which studied the coordination of body movement and speechon the basis of a large collection of video recordings of medical consul-tations.

Thus, early work by Charles Goodwin (1981) and Christian Heath (1986),and also Emanuel Schegloff (1984), used film materials to analyse howhumans, in co-present interaction, exploit, in an orderly and situated way, alarge range of verbal, aural and visual resources in order to produce intel-ligible actions, and how they use these resources to interpret publicly dis-played and mutually available actions (Streeck 1993). In an important way,



this early work was convergent with some of the assumptions made by pion-eers in gesture studies, such as Kendon (1990) and McNeill (1981) who hadargued that gesture and talk are not separate ‘modules’ for communicationbut originate from the very same linguistic, cognitive and social mechanisms.

Subsequently, there has emerged a large range of analyses in researchon social interaction and conversation analysis that builds upon this back-ground and focuses on the use of such embodied details as gesture, gaze,head movements, nods, facial expressions and body postures. While somestudies focus on one of these details and explore their systematic char-acter (e.g. Schegloff [1984] on gestures produced by speakers; Ch. Good-win [1981] on gaze and re-starts; Stivers [2008] on nodding and affiliation instorytelling; Mondada [2007a] on pointing and imminent speaker’s self-se-lection, and so on), other studies consider the coherent and coordinatedcomplexity of embodied conducts (e.g. Heath [1989] on gaze, body postureand orientations; Streeck [1993] on gesture and gaze; Schmitt [2007] andMondada and Schmitt [2007] on the coordination of a range of multimo-dal resources, and so on). This emphasis on global Gestalts also invites usto investigate the entire body and its adjustments to other bodies in theirenvironment, and at the same time to take into account object manipulationsand body movements within the environment (Ch. Goodwin 2000).

Sequential organisations of different kinds, levels and complexity havebeen explored within this approach, and they show that sequentiality is con-figured not only by talk but also by a range of embodied resources. Theyalso show how the various concurrent temporalities of these resources con-tribute to the complex and smooth organisation of social interaction. Turn-taking, for example, basically relies on these multiple resources (Lerner 2003;Mondada 2007a; Streeck and Hartge 1991; Schmitt 2005) as well as on theinteractive construction of single utterances and incremental turn units (Ch.Goodwin 1979, 1981), including the collaborative construction of turns(Bolden 2003; Hayashi 2005). Also, sequence organisation relies on multi-modality, as has been demonstrated by studies on assessments (Goodwinand Goodwin 1987; Haddington 2006; Lindström and Mondada 2009), onword searches (Goodwin and Goodwin 1986; Hayashi 2003) and repair (deFornel 1991), as well as by Ch. Goodwin’s (e.g. 2003b, 2004) research on howsequences are co-constructed by aphasic speakers and their co-interactants.Turns and sequences are closely monitored in the interactive construction of actions; for example, co-participants constantly orient to recipiency(M.H. Goodwin 1980), mutual attention (Heath 1982), and the achievementof mutual understanding (Nevile 2004b; Koschmann 2011). This cruciallyinvolves multimodal resources, such as mutual gaze and gaze oriented to



objects, but also body postures and orientations. These embodied features inturn build and display different ways of participating (Goodwin and Good-win 2004), in everyday situations (see the analyses of by-play by M.H. Good-win 1995b; or of stance and participation by Ch. Goodwin 2007a) as well asin professional ones (see the analyses of embodied participation in meetingsby Ford 2008; Markaki and Mondada, in press; Deppermann, Schmitt, andMondada 2010).

These studies show that it is necessary to go beyond the study of single‘modalities’ coordinated with talk and to take into account the broaderembodied and environmentally situated organisation of activities. CharlesGoodwin’s research stands as a prime example of this and has been laterdeveloped in a rich diversity of terrains in the area of ‘workplace studies’.Indeed, Charles Goodwin (e.g. 2000, 2003a) has pursued pioneering work inconceptualising social action in multimodal environments. He shows that inaddition to talk and embodiment, it is crucially important to consider other‘semiotic fields’ or ‘semiotic resources’, such as the environment and thematerial artefacts that surround interactants, and to look at how thesemutually elaborate each other and are used as resources for producing andrecognising actions and for accomplishing meaningful activities. Goodwin(2000) claims that in a particular moment in interaction there are severalsemiotic fields at play simultaneously, and although not all of them arenecessarily relevant in the unfolding interaction at one time, many of themare. He uses the term ‘contextual configuration’ (2000) to refer to thearray of semiotic (cultural, material and sequential) features that participantsorient to as relevant for their action at a given moment.

Goodwin’s work convincingly shows how different modalities and theenvironment are used together to organise interaction. For example, Good-win (2000) shows how during a game of hopscotch a player can use the hop-scotch grid as a multimodal resource for producing and challenging action,e.g. accusing the other player for throwing a beanbag in the wrong squareand thereby for having breached the rules. In another example, he (2003a:20) provides a detailed analysis of how a graphic structure in the soil, onwhich two archaeologists focus their attention, acts as a crucial resource inthe production of the complex embodied activity in which they are engaged.Consequently, different modalities (language, gestures and the body) and theenvironment elaborate each other, are mutually interdependent, and are rel-evant to the organisation of activities in interaction.

As we can see, a multimodal approach to the analysis of social interactionhas included an increasingly wide and complex range of resources, and takenmore and more seriously the issues of engagement, position and arrange-



ment of bodies in interaction. These insights have been further used anddeveloped in workplace studies for analysing complex situations, where spe-cific activities, such as managing underground rail traffic and security (Heathand Luff 2000), coordinating the work in control rooms, for example in anairport (Ch. Goodwin 1996; Suchman 1996, 1997), managing emergencycalls and help dispatch (Whalen and Zimmerman 1987; Whalen 1995), oper-ating on a patient (Koschmann et al. 2003; Mondada 2003, 2007b), flying anairliner (Nevile 2004a), directing and arranging camera views in a televisionstudio (Broth 2008, 2009), allocating turns, organising exercises and check-ing homework in classrooms (Mortensen 2009; Kääntä 2010) are timelyorganised by relying on and using a wide range of embodied, environmental,material and technological resources. As we see next, very often the coordi-nation of complex social practices involves the use of technology.

2.2.4. Technology and interaction

Chapters in this volume are in varying ways informed by research of howdifferent forms of technology, such as complex computerised systems,mediated telecommunication, media systems, and video and other graphicrepresentations such as displays and screens, feature in and impact interac-tion and social activity. This research has shown how technology can be con-sequential for specific aspects of the shape and sequential organisation ofinteraction, and for interaction’s situated, embodied and temporal accom-plishment. Especially after Suchman (1987), using and engaging with tech-nology is associated with, and both enables and constrains, forms of percep-tion, reasoning, understanding, and communication, and also the nature andtrajectory of participation and the social actions undertaken. Three lines ofresearch interest are particularly relevant for informing the chapters of thisvolume: technology in collaborative work; technology as mediating interac-tion (e.g. mobile phones, radio); and video technologies, as either resourcefor collaborative work (e.g. in work settings) or for capturing and investigat-ing interaction itself. We will briefly introduce each of these in turn.

In the first line of interest, researchers have focused on how participantsinteract as they draw on technologies as a resource or tool in proceduresand practices for accomplishing collaborative work, for example to conductscientific research, perform surgery, operate equipment, manage compute-rised systems, and organise complex networks (e.g. Button 1993; Ch. Good-win 1995, 1996; Heath and Luff 2000; Nishizaka 2000; Luff and Heath 1993,2002; Mondada 2003; Nevile 2004a; Koschmann et al. 2006). Technologiesfeature as part of the material, spatial and semiotic environment for the



moment-to-moment production, recognisability, order and intelligibility ofthe work for which they are used. Participants might look at and touchscreens, push buttons, and enter data. With and through various technol-ogies, participants can interact to organise joint conduct for tasks, oftenwhen multiple participants are physically distributed around a particular site,or located across multiple sites. Technologies may allow participants to per-form particular activities, and forms of graphic display allow participants torender their own actions visible and to monitor others’ actions. Participantsdraw on technologies as they cooperate to direct and prioritise actions, allo-cate duties and responsibilities, develop and share perceptions and aware-ness of activities and events, and attend and respond to emerging circum-stances and contingencies. Also the spatial positions of technologies mayimpede or facilitate collaboration between people (e.g. Luff and Heath 1999:307).

For example, a cluster of studies has considered technologies and collab-orative activity in centres of control and coordination, most relevantly forthis volume in operations rooms for transportations systems, such as at air-ports or for managing rail networks (e.g. M.H. Goodwin 1995a; Suchman1996, 1997; Heath and Luff 2000; Heath et al. 2002). Key foci include par-ticipants’ practices for sequencing activities by establishing and communi-cating awareness, and by coordinating independent actions. Other studiesare especially germane because they explore technology and interaction inmobile settings, such as the airline cockpit or cockpit simulator (Nevile2004a, 2004b, 2007, 2010; Auvinen 2009; Melander and Sahlström 2009;Arminen, Auvinen, and Palukka 2010) or the car (Haddington and Keisanen2009; Haddington 2010; Nevile and Haddington 2010; Haddington, Keis-anen, and Nevile in press; Mondada, in press e). For example, studies ofthe cockpit examine pilots’ language and embodied conduct for performingtasks or actions to control their plane, such as to turn, or control speed ordirection, or change and regulate altitude, and to communicate with others(e.g. air traffic controllers) to remain separated from other air and groundtraffic.

A second relevant interest is in forms of technologically-mediated inter-action, such as through computer or telecommunications like radio andmobile phones (e.g. Arminen 2005; Arminen and Leinonen 2006; Arminenand Weilenmann 2009; Haddington and Rauniomaa 2011; Hutchby 2001;Hutchby and Barnett 2005; Keating, Edwards, and Mirus 2008; Keatingand Sunakawa 2010; Sanders 2003; Szymanski 1999; Szymanski et al. 2006;Whalen 1995). This research has considered how participants organise andstructure interaction relative to the particularities, demands and possibilities



of the systems, and how such technologies can impact and afford particularforms of social action and develop new forms of sociality. For example, tech-nological mediation may have implications at least for openings and closingsto interaction, identification of parties, turn-taking, silence, and topic intro-duction and transitions. In interaction for collaborative work such technol-ogies can be highly significant for organising participation and for creatingawareness across participants for determining courses of activity and taskoutcomes (Heath and Luff 2000; Juhlin and Weilenmann 2001; Mondada2011; Nevile 2004a, 2009; Froholdt 2010).

Lastly, many researchers have examined specifically the role and characterof video technologies in interaction. Some have analysed video as a tool forcollaborative work, for example in control centres (discussed above) or inparticular settings (e.g. surgery, Mondada 2003; Koschmann et al. 2006),especially for its significance in shaping and supporting perception and par-ticipation. Others have highlighted participants’ situated considerations andactions for the very processes of producing video for diverse audiences, forexample in the TV or editing studio (Broth 2008, 2009; Mondada 2009b;Laurier and Brown 2011), or for creating video data for research purposesand subsequent analysis (Ch. Goodwin 1993; Mondada 2006; Koschmann,Stahl, and Zemel 2007). In common, these researchers are interested in thelocal, here-and-now temporally and physically contingent practices throughwhich video is produced by participants who interpret, assemble and config-ure relevant details from scenes of interest.

3. From space to mobility

Workplace studies have given a new impetus to the study of social interactionin complex settings: more particularly, in being interested in studying profes-sional action in fragmented, often mediated, and technologically-rich ecol-ogies, they have emphasised the role of the body in its multiple aspects, therole of material artefacts and technologies, and the role of space.

Research on the role of space in interaction is particularly relevant for thenew studies on mobility in interaction. Early ethnomethodological andconversation analytic studies already explored the ways in which space isreferred to and used as a resource in interaction. These studies, however,remained at the margins until the emergence of a general spatial turn in thelast decade in the social sciences. Subsequently, two different understandingsof the role of space in the organisation of social exchanges in interaction canbe seen to have developed. On the one hand, there has been an interest inhow place is formulated (Schegloff 1972), i.e. in how participants refer to,



categorise, locate and describe places in interaction, through talk and ges-ture. On the other hand, attention has been given to the ways in which bodiesin interaction are arranged and disposed, and how they achieve an interac-tional space for the purposes of the unfolding situated activity. These twoways of studying space have been treated separately but they are not discon-nected: in direction giving, for instance, the way in which places are locatedand described also involves the position of the participants’ bodies withinthe interactional space (Mondada 2009a). In this section, we reflect on howreference to place, direction-giving and interactional space have been treatedin ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. We try to show that thesestudies constitute early contributions to issues of mobility and provide asolid ground on which further studies on mobility in interaction can bebased.

In linguistics, there is a long tradition of research on spatial reference(Blom et al. 1996; Hickmann and Robert 2006; Lenz 2003; Levinson 2003).However, this abundant literature has largely neglected the interactionalpractices in which grammatical and lexical resources are used by speakers.Within ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, the way in which par-ticipants identify, locate, describe and refer to place in social interaction wasinfluentially studied by Schegloff in his paper on formulating place (1972).Schegloff showed that place formulations share with other categorisationpractices (Sacks 1972) the property of relying on features that are made rel-

evant by the participants (and not just on features that are referentially cor-rect) for the practical purposes of the activity in which they are engaged.These features are the product of multiple analyses conducted by the partici-pants, including of the location of the speaker, of the co-conversationalists,and of the located objects. This means that participants rely on a situatedcommon sense geography, but which they actively construct and produce.Additionally, formulating a place involves the participants’ membership cat-egorisation analysis. For example, the participants orient to and identify theperson who delivers an itinerary description as a ‘native’ and a competentdescriber, and to whom the localisation inquiry can be addressed, by choos-ing a place formulation adjusting to his or her supposed category. Finally,participants engage in topic analysis or analysis of the activities at hand.Further work on place formulations has either focused on how sharedunderstandings of locations are achieved by relying on and using specifickinds of resources in specific sequential environments (for instance byfocusing on deictic reference), or studied the way in which locations are usedin particular settings and activities – often where they are crucial for theachievement of a particular task (e.g. dispatching help in emergencies).



This interest in spatial descriptions and their situated and orderly use insocial interaction converges with a substantial body of literature on referen-tial linguistic forms. This is particularly the case for the study of spatialdeixis within ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, which has con-tributed in an original way to linguistics and linguistic anthropology byfocusing on the double situatedness of deictic resources, both within thelocal environment of the activity and the sequential context of the inter-action. Interactional approaches to deixis have revisited the very notion ofcontext (Hanks 1990) and shown the importance of multimodal resources(Haviland 1993) in addition to linguistic forms. These studies have alsohighlighted the importance of the relative position and distribution of theparticipants’ bodies, constantly reconfiguring Bühler’s origo (Mondada 2005),as they are finely coordinated within the unfolding of the activity (Hind-marsh and Heath 2000).

The situated embeddedness of referential practices within specific socialactivities has also prompted an interest in place formulations for particularsettings and interactions in which they can have a crucial role for achievingtasks and activities. This is the case for example of place formulations inemergency calls, in which they are a central issue for dispatch (Bergmann1993; Fele 2008; Mondada 2008, 2011, in press b; Zimmerman 1992). Thesame has been shown to apply also to surgical operations, in which thelocation of surgical tools as well as relevant landmarks within the anatomicallandscape is crucial (Koschmann, Stahl, and Zemel 2007, Mondada 2003).Moreover, place formulations play an important role in the interaction andactivity between fighter pilots when they need to establish their own positionand the position of possible enemies in space (Nevile 2009, this volume). Inall of these cases, place reference is crucial for planning, coordinating andorganising action and mobility within space.

Locations, deictic references and place formulations are not only orga-nised by reference to objects, persons or events located in space: they areselectively and situatedly formatted with respect to the position of thespeaker and co-participants. Indeed, this is an important way in whichresearch on place formulations contributes to mobility research and hasbecome particularly evident in the analyses of direction-giving. ‘Direction-giving sequences’ involve practical formulations that take into account astarting point as well as a target or a destination. In addition, positions canbe dynamic and change, for example, if movement in space is projected. Inessence, directions are produced for a planned mobile activity that is antici-pated in the future.

Direction-giving has been studied from a variety of perspectives, in lin-



guistics (see Klein 1979; Wunderlich 1976 for early works) and psychology(see for example Allen 2000; Denis et al. 1999; Mark and Gould 1995; Taylorand Tversky 1992), but also in ethnomethodology and conversation analy-sis. Linguistic and psychological research has privileged direction-giving asbeing based on linguistic and cognitive representations of space that are acti-vated and actualised while delivering the itinerary, whereas ethnomethodo-logical and conversation analytic research has emphasised the coordinatedway in which the itinerary emerges within situated practical reasoning (Psa-thas 1979) and in which it is interactionally generated. The latter has alsoshown that itineraries are provided in response to an inquiry, within vari-ous direction-giving sequences whose organisation is not only dependent onhow the initial question is formulated (cf. ‘how to get there’ vs. ‘where areyou?’ sequences, Psathas 1986) but also on the monitoring of the recipient’sunderstanding in the situation (Psathas 1991; Mondada 2007b). Further, indirection-giving sequences participants rely on a variety of linguistic, gestu-ral, bodily resources (Mondada 2007b) as well as material artefacts such asmaps and internet resources (Psathas 1979; Brown and Laurier 2005, Mon-dada 2011, in press b).

For appreciating mobility, it is worth noting that most past studies haveindeed focused on direction-giving from a static position, projecting andplanning future mobile activity. What is noteworthy is that spatial referencescan also be modified dynamically when participants are engaged in an activ-ity while on the move. Some recent studies show that even this positioninvolves the constitution of a common space of action and multiple dynamicrearrangements of the bodies (De Stefani and Mondada 2007; Mondada2007b, 2009a). Other recent studies focus on direction giving on the move,as they are formulated here and now within the journey, with respect to theparticipants’ position in space for example in cars (Haddington and Keis-anen 2009; Haddington 2010; Mondada 2005) and airplanes (Nevile 2004a,2005) (see below 4.2.4.).

Place descriptions and direction giving involve in a central manner theposition of the participants to the interaction. This position can be seen asa point within space, related to the origo established within the interaction,formulated in more or less selective and abstract ways. In addition to this,this position of the participants in interaction can be conceived as beingachieved through the finely-tuned coordination of an arrangement of bodiesin face-to-face interaction. In other words, interaction is organised not onlyby addressing the co-participants in a recipient-designed way, nor by just cat-egorising them, but also by taking into consideration their positions withinthe local ecology. On the one hand, the participants’ positions within this



ecology can be seen to be constrained by the external and material space –which is, nonetheless, only made relevant when it is used as a resource for theorganisation of action. On the other hand, it can be seen to be configured bythe arrangement and coordination of the mutual body positions of the par-ticipants. This latter aspect defines interactional space.

Analyses of the interactional space have been influenced by the early workof Goffman (1963), Scheflen (1964) and Kendon (1977). Goffman showsthat body arrangements in space create temporary and changing boundedterritories. These territories are recognised by participants involved in anencounter, as well as bystanders. The positions of the bodies delimit a tem-porary “ecological huddle” (Goffman 1964) which materialises the “situ-ated activity system” (Goffman 1961). These arrangements constitute whatGoffman (1963) calls “focused gatherings” and which are defined by mutualorientation and shared attention as displayed by body positions, postures,gaze and addressed gestures. This interest in temporary territories, and intheir effectiveness, is shared by Ashcraft and Scheflen (1976). On the basisof video-taped encounters in private and public settings, they observe that“the unoccupied space in the center of the group nevertheless becomes aclaimed territory. Others outside the circle customarily recognize the terri-tory” (1976: 7). Kendon (1977; 1990: 248–9) conceptualises this territoryby using the notion ‘F-formation’ by which he refers to how different bodypositions and orientations build an arrangement that favours a commonfocus of attention and engagement in a joint activity.

Mondada (2005, 2007a, 2009a, in press a) draws on the above studiesand proposes that interactional space is constituted through the situated,mutually adjusted and changing arrangements of the participants’ bodies.This produces a configuration that is relevant for how participants engagewith each other, establish mutual and common foci of attention, manipulateobjects and coordinate their joint action. Such an interactional space is con-stantly established and under transformation within the activity (De Stefaniand Mondada 2007; LeBaron and Streeck 1997; McIlvenny 2009; McIlvenny,Broth and Haddington 2009; Mondada 2009a, 2011; De Stefani 2011; Nevilein press).

After this broader approach to space of social interaction, it is a naturalstep to begin to consider how people interact while they move. We can there-fore begin to consider how people use language and their bodies for interac-ting with each other, how the space in and through which they are moving isconsequential for and modifies their interaction, how they move together ingroups and formations, or how they coordinate the mobility of others in andthrough talk and interaction.



4. Towards interaction and mobility

We have so far considered the broad range of phenomena and questions withwhich ethnomethodological and conversation analytic research has dealt. Inmany ways, these quite naturally build towards the analysis of interactionand mobility. Existing research and findings have predominantly focused oninteraction in static settings and occurring within a local site. Occasionallymobility and its connection to action and interaction have been touchedupon, as in the analyses of how embodied and spatial resources are built intoa mobile action (Ch. Goodwin 2003a) and how space is described or con-structed for or during a mobile activity (e.g. Schegloff 1972; Psathas 1991;Hester and Francis 2003). However, apart from a few papers, such as GeorgePsathas’s article ‘Mobility, orientation and navigation: conceptual and theor-etical considerations’ (1976), it was not until quite recently that scholars havesystematically begun to analyse and conceptualise the connection betweeninteraction and mobility. Important recent work in this sense includesstudies of pilots’ interaction in the airline or military cockpit (e.g. Nevile2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2007, 2009), work on pedestrian movements (Watson2005) and studies of interaction between the driver and passengers in cars(e.g. Laurier 2005; Laurier et al. 2008; Haddington 2010; Haddington andKeisanen 2009; Haddington, Keisanen, and Nevile in press), as well asmobility as an essential element of professionals’ work practices (Luff andHeath 1999; Büscher 2006). Furthermore, in a special issue on ‘Communi-cating place, space and mobility’, McIlvenny, Broth and Haddington (2009)raise questions and issues of how mobility features in interaction as aresource or a contextual feature. They ask, for example,

what kind of a semiotic or interactional resource is mobility? Is ‘mobility’ itself aresource, or does mobility provide a continuing set of contingent resources […] inthe environment. And, thus, is it so that because of the conditions of ‘mobility’ wehave to consider and deal with continuously changing material […] and interac-tional resources in a qualitatively different way compared to what we find in astatic situation? (McIlvenny, Broth and Haddington 2009: 1880)

These questions involve both methodological and conceptual matters thatneed to be taken into account when considering interaction and mobilitytogether.

We aim here to extend research within ethnomethodology and conver-sation analysis by presenting new analyses of how mobility features in andfor interaction, and how it becomes visible in everyday social behaviour, inand through talk, for actions and activities. The analyses draw from data thathave been recorded in different interactional (everyday and workplace), face-



to-face and technologically mediated, as well as cultural and linguistic (Eng-lish, Estonian, Finnish, French, Italian and Swedish) contexts, and inwhich mobility is oriented to, enabled, constructed, instructed, and so on.Throughout this section we reflect on previous research on interaction andmobility, and are informed also by the chapters in this book. Next we pres-ent possible methodological issues involved in studying interaction in mobilesettings, especially for recording and transcribing mobile action (4.1). Then,throughout subsequent sub-sections, we introduce and outline some emerg-ing important conceptual concerns for clarifying and understanding therelation between interaction and mobility (4.2). Finally, we connect the ana-lytic approach and mentality adopted in this book to the multidisciplinaryfield of mobility studies (5.), to see how the present analyses can respond toand complement its interests and questions.

4.1. Methodological issues

In the paper ‘Mobility, orientation and navigation’, Psathas (1976: 385)makes the important methodological point that people are usually notexplicitly aware of how they accomplish everyday tasks. Further, he notesthat impressions and descriptions of how people do so are usually very dif-ferent from what actually happens. Similarly, it is difficult to know individ-uals’ thoughts, emotions or feelings when they act and interact. What is moreeasily available for observation and analysis is how social participants talk,use their bodies and manipulate objects in interaction, and through theiractions display how they recognise and understand other people’s conduct,and events and situations. Recently, some qualitative research using audioand video-based data of human activity in different settings has emerged(Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 2010: 15), but still relatively few studies useaudio or video data of mobile settings, and analyse interaction as it occurs inthem.

In their introduction to the volume Mobile Methods, Büscher, Urry, andWitcher (2011a) raise an important methodological question specificallyregarding the study of mobility: how to study the fleeting moments of mobil-ity and their place in the social world? Various ways of collecting audio-videorecordings for understanding ‘social action’ and the fleetingness of mobil-ity have been explored (for guides and guidelines, see Knoblauch et al. 2006;Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 2010; see also Büscher, Urry, and Witcher2011a: 9). While some researchers have used a method called “talking-while-walking” in which walkers talk to an audio recording device in order to cap-ture their experiences and encounters during the walk (see Hester and Fran-



cis 2003; Adey 2010), and others, like Spinney (2011), use video ethnographyfor describing mobile settings and experiences while cycling, most conver-sation analytic researchers have privileged the video documentation of nat-urally-occurring mobile activities. For example, Psathas (1992) and Mondada(2009a, in press d) have video-recorded situations in which people are walk-ing; Laurier (e.g. see Laurier 2004; Laurier et al. 2008) has together with hiscolleagues collected an extensive driving corpus; Nevile (2004a) has built animportant corpus of data recorded in the cockpit during commercial flights,with huge constraints related to the restricted space of the cockpit, andwithin extensive preparation in aviation and security matters.

Video materials permit careful observation of the embodied and situateddetails of mobile actions. In ethnomethodology and conversation analysis,researchers do not limitedly focus on the content of what people say e.g. theirtopics of conversation, or their opinions or beliefs. Rather, analysts are inter-ested in what people do through interaction, and how they do so. In otherwords, the analytic focus is on the design and organisation of practices ofverbal and embodied conduct, particularly in sequences of actions and activ-ities, on which people rely, regardless of their individual opinions, beliefs, oridentities, worldviews, etc. Video cameras capture these actions in their natu-ralistic settings. This methodology has generated the question of whetherthe presence of cameras influences or changes people’s behaviour. Ofcourse, people do sometimes talk or joke about being recorded, often whenrecording begins, and may gaze at the camera, often when delicate mattersare transpiring. But this is not systematic. Mostly people forget the presenceof the camera and continue in the typical routinised manner of their everydayand work lives and responsibilities (see Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 2010:47–49). Instead of treating these moments in which participants orient to thecamera as ‘biases’ in the video methodology, conversation analysis can treatthem as topics for analysis by showing that the orientation towards therecordings reveal orderly features of the organisation of the interaction(Heath 1986; Lomax and Casey 1998).

The possibility to view video-recorded social events after they have takenplace, and to view them repeatedly and even in slow motion, provides aninvaluable resource for studying the richness of everyday interaction andmobility. It begins to show us how participants talk and act in mobile situ-ations, how they orient to the demands of mobility and coordinate their talkand actions with such demands. For example, video data can also show howpeople use ‘stops’ to punctuate trajectories of mobility, for example whenthey stop to ask for and give directions (Mondada 2009a), or to view anexhibit at a museum (vom Lehn this volume), or to do shopping (De Stefani



this volume). They can also show how mobility and mobile actions are coor-dinated from afar (Koskela, Arminen, and Palukka this volume; Licoppe andMorel this volume; Nevile this volume). Consequently, mobility is no longer‘fleeting’, but either planned or ongoing, ever demanding, requiring continu-ous maintenance and orientation.

Obtaining good-quality audio and video recordings always requires care-ful preparation. Although in some rare situations it is possible to obtaingood and interesting data from the internet (see Nevile, this volume), inmost cases scholars use data that has been specifically recorded for researchpurposes. With the digital revolution, cameras are easy to use and it isrelatively easy to transfer recorded material into computers for editing,analysis and transcription. Nevertheless, after one has been able to findpeople who are willing to be recorded, before the actual recording, it isimportant to consider what could be most relevant and important for theanalysis, or what can disrupt the recording. These considerations can informdecisions on the locations of cameras and microphones, camera angles,whether the camera is fixed or moving. These and other issues are brieflysummarised below (and see Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 2010: 10–12,37–47; Knoblauch et al. 2006, 2008; and earlier Ch. Goodwin 1993). Inaddition to this, as always in data collection, there are special ethical issuesinvolved in making recordings of real-life naturally-occurring everyday inter-action and using them for research. This involves seeking ethical clearances,securing informed consent, and agreeing on how the data and the poss-ible representations of them (e.g. transcriptions and images) can be used forresearch and teaching purposes.

A further issue to be taken into account when recording in mobile situ-ations is given by mobility itself. Although digital video cameras and micro-phones are becoming smaller and lighter, recording interaction in mobilesettings can involve several decisions: should one use fixed or hand-heldcameras, how should one place, operate and move the cameras, how shouldone choose and maintain the appropriate field of view to include verbaland embodied conduct between mobile participants, and also how does onechange the field of view if important events take place out of camera shot? Inthe chapters in this book, some recordings have been collected by followingpeople (i.e. being mobile with them) (Broth and Lundström; vom Lehn; DeStefani; Lan et al.), some have used cameras that are fixed in a mobile vehicle,for example in cars (Laurier; Haddington) or airplanes (Nevile) and somehave used fixed cameras within a setting (Keevallik; Mondada; Koskela,Arminen, and Palukka). It should also be borne in mind that with hand-held,roving cameras, the person doing the recording can be considered a partici-



pant who is involved in the recorded situation. As Broth and Lundström(this volume) show, the person recording can display involvement in a situ-ation by moving the camera in particular ways, projecting movement, start-ing, stopping and so on.

Another aspect to consider is how many cameras to use. As to the studiesin this volume, some use one camera (e.g. Broth and Lundström; Keevallik),while others use two or more cameras (e.g. Laurier; Mondada; Hadding-ton; Lan et al; Koskela, Arminen, and Palukka). While using a single cameramight result in missing important events, using more cameras involves a riskof fragmentation of the views and also means more data, requiring morework and time for editing, synchronising and analysing.

Recording moving people and events, and taking into account mobilecontingencies, also entails other challenges. For example, for analysing in-car interaction it can be important to obtain recordings of the participants’actions from both the front and the back, as well as of the space in whichthe car is moving (see Laurier this volume; Haddington this volume). Thisrequires more than one camera. Moreover, in settings like cars and airlinecockpits there are few possibilities to move either the cameras or the people.In such spatially constrained settings, some problems can be overcome byusing wide-angle or fish-eye lenses to capture as much of the interaction aspossible (see Laurier this volume). On the other hand, recording interactionis still comparatively easy because the participants are seated and strapped in,and so cannot move about freely.

Video-recording walking, on the other hand, can be more challenging,because people have more freedom to move with respect to their co-par-ticipants. Recent new technologies can provide some help. Some interactionanalysts have started to use sunglass video recorders (see Zouinar et al. 2004)or small helmet cameras. These are light and easy to carry around, whichmakes them useful for recording mobile situations. The recorded partici-pants can also wear them, although it should be borne in mind that sunglassvideo cameras do not show what the participant sees; they are just indicativeof where the participant’s head is directed.

Recording acceptable audio material is essential for analysing talk andthus for getting a solid understanding of unfolding events. In many cases, thevideo camera’s own microphone is sufficient for getting good-quality audiorecording (e.g. for interaction in cars). However, in situations in whichpeople move further away from the camera it can be helpful to use separatemicrophones that are attached to the moving participants. If possible, onecan couple microphones wirelessly with the camera, or the audio can be syn-chronised with the video afterwards. Some situations, for example recording



mobile phone conversations, can require special technical solutions or soft-ware (e.g. Licoppe and Morel this volume; Morel and Licoppe 2011). Some-times it is also valuable to take into account possible background noise. All inall, it is important to plan carefully how the audio material is recorded sincelittle can be done to improve the quality afterwards.

Another important issue is transcription. How does one transcribe thedata and capture the relevant phenomena in ways that are sensitive to andable to represent mobility and interaction, interaction on the move? How to rep-resent the rich social and material mobile world that people inhabit, share,and jointly experience and create? How to show how people orient to eventsand other participants’ actions? But at the same time, how does one avoidextreme complexity of transcriptions while still including what is relevant forthe analysed phenomena? The chapters in this book present several inno-vative ways to represent interaction of real-life and mobile activity. In addi-tion to transcribing talk, which is traditional and fundamental for conver-sation analysis (see section 2.1.), the authors have used special symbols,images, images in series, diagrams, maps, outline drawings and comic strips,and also various combinations of these, to represent situated conduct, in itsembodied, material and spatial details, and the relationship between interac-tion and mobility. Many authors also use arrows, lines and circles etc. withintheir images to highlight the character of mobility actions and events. Inaddition, it is often important to ensure the privacy of the recorded partici-pants and to secure their anonymity. There are many conventional ways toanonymise recorded participants, such as using pseudonyms in transcrip-tions and modifying images, for example by blurring them or making outlinedrawings (see Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 2010: 14–32).

In summary, the general methodological direction of this volume can beused innovatively to respond to many issues and questions involved in ana-lysing mobile actions and practices, and the relationship between interactionand mobility.

4.2. Conceptualising action and mobility

McIlvenny, Broth and Haddington (2009: 1880) state that new concepts arenecessary to deal with the added complexity of mobile interactions and toanalyse the ways in which mobility affects and constitutes everyday com-municative practices. Such conceptualisations also become important as wetry to understand how people create, orient to, establish and achieve mobil-ity in and through interaction. In the following, by drawing on prior researchand the chapters in this volume, we present a view of how mobility features



in social life for forms of action, how mobility can shape and configure par-ticipants’ social conduct, and also how talk and other interactional practicescan be used in the service of starting, maintaining, coordinating and stop-ping mobility. Such interests are relatively underexplored in conversationanalysis and ethnomethodology research. We are concerned with this vol-ume to show that, and how, mobility in interaction can be investigated andunderstood for how it is accomplished through participants’ local practices,and that there are particular challenges and implications for interacting onthe move, for being mobile with others. Generally then, we can pose two broadquestions for exploring interaction and mobility. First, how is social actionrelated to mobility? And second, what kind of context is mobility for socialaction? Some responses are sketched in the next sections, dealing withmobile practices (4.2.1), stillness as a form of activity (4.2.2), mobility andtemporal order (4.2.3), the ecology and context of mobile actions (4.2.4), andthe way in which mobile actions are jointly organised (4.2.5), as well as tech-nologically mediated (4.2.6). Each section is finished with some issues andquestions that highlight key areas of interest for the chapters, as well as morewidely for studying interaction and mobility.

4.2.1. Mobile activities and practices

There are very different ways of being mobile in the world. We can think ofsuch mobile activities as walking, running, riding a bike, flying an airplane,dancing, driving a car, and so on. However, these displacements are morecomplex than just moving or going around. Walking, which is no doubt themost pervasive, mundane and basic form of mobility (Urry 2007: 63; see alsoFrancis and Hester 2003; Mondada 2009a; Ryave and Schenkein 1974; Psa-thas 1992; Relieu 1999), involves very different kinds of experiences andpractices than driving a car or flying an airplane. Different mobile activitiesalso involve different mobility scales. These different forms of placementand relation also impose different possibilities and requirements for socialinteraction and how participants organise such mobile practices as starting,accelerating, slowing down, stopping, turning and giving directions, in andthrough interaction.

Furthermore, there are differences in how human bodies are involved inmobility (see e.g. Adey 2010: 133–175; Dant 2004). Some mobile activitiesand practices involve the participants’ bodies directly (e.g. walking and run-ning), while in some cases movement is mediated by technologies (e.g. cyc-ling, driving, and flying an airplane). In some situations people are them-selves immobile but coordinate the movement of others, as in different kinds



of coordination centres (Heath and Luff 1992, 2000; Goodwin and Good-win 1996) or when players coordinate the mobility of virtual actors in videogames (Mondada this volume).

We often take such mobile activities as walking and crossing the street forgranted. However, often these must be taught and learned, for example forblind persons (Psathas 1976, 1992; Relieu 1994). In particular, the mobileactivities that are mediated by technologies, such as riding a bike, driving acar or flying an airplane, require instruction, guidance and practice beforeone becomes accustomed to how the body functions and is appropriatelycoordinated with respect to objects and material circumstances, to adjustspeed, integrate mobility with other mobile actors and so on. Additionally,the ability to successfully perform mobile activities is often part and parcelof everyday and professional work and has to be acquired in order tomove around successfully, often in difficult or extraordinary circumstances(Melander and Sahlström 2009; Watson 1999).

The chapters of this book capture the diversity of mobile activities andthe experiences and practices involved in them, and importantly, show theconsequentiality of interaction. They focus on such mobile activities as walk-ing, driving a car, flying, dancing, but also on immobility as an active accom-plishment. They also show how these activities require very different kindsinteractional practices and embodied experiences:

– how mobile activities are organised into different mobile practices, suchas ‘approaching’, ‘entering’, ‘circling’, ‘turning’, ‘stopping’, ‘slowingdown’, ‘withdrawing’, ‘continuing’, ‘attacking’ and ‘diving’;

– how mobile practices are organised collaboratively as part of such broadermobile activities as walking and driving;

– how interactional practices – verbal and embodied – are involved in mak-ing decisions with/for different mobile practices;

– how people are taught mobile practices or how they are instructed tocoordinate the mobile practices of several others;

– how technologies feature in how people accomplish and coordinatemobile activities and practices.

4.2.2. Stillness and mobility

In some settings, being mobile may also involve stopping and being still.Stillness might preface mobility, or occur within mobile activities, or mightbe an outcome of mobility. On the one hand, stillness amidst mobility canitself be the participants’ objective. Such occasions of stillness might be



occasional or frequent, and might be an ordinary, expected, unremarkable,and even necessary phase, when conducting and pacing a trajectory ofmobile activities within the spatial surround. For example, landscape archi-tects stop at key vantage points as they interact to assess the visual and land-scape effects of proposed built developments (Büscher 2006). Pedestrianscan also stop others for example for asking directions, in which case stop-ping involves careful embodied coordination before the new interactionalencounter begins (Mondada 2009a). In driving, minibus passengers, conduc-tors, and drivers collaborate so that passengers can negotiate their exit at thedesired stop along the journey (D’hondt 2009). Drivers and passengers alsocan search for and find a parking place together (Laurier 2005). Or, inrail transport systems, controllers coordinate their activities to monitor andorganise the movements and stops of trains (Heath and Luff 2000). Someactivities that involve mobility, such as shopping, visiting a museum or tak-ing part in a guided tour, are organised into successions of starts, movementsand stops (see Broth and Lundström this volume; De Stefani this vol-ume; Mondada in press a, in press d). In many ways, for example stoppingtogether at an exhibit in a museum and starting to move away from it is simi-lar to opening or closing a conversation or a phase of it: as beginningsor endings of activities, they require careful alignment and coordinationbetween co-participants (see also Mondada 2009a).

While in these cases stopping and continued mobility are usually seen-but-unnoticed phenomena, in other settings stopping or stillness may beunexpected, noticeable, remarkable and accountable, problematic, or evenimpossible. For example in artistic performances (e.g. in public freezes, seeLan et al. this volume) or in dance lessons (Keevallik this volume), stopping,stillness or immobility are made noticeable for different practical ends. Insuch situations, achieving stillness can require preparation and work, andparticular kind of competence, so that stillness or a stop is done at the appro-priate moment, together with others, and so that it is held for exactly the rightduration. In other settings, participants draw on various resources to supportand maintain continued mobility, or to recover mobility when it could be vul-nerable or is lost. For example, a train stopping unexpectedly on an under-ground rail network can engender a range of communications and actions bycontrollers to remedy the situation and restore system mobility (Heath andLuff 1996). Car drivers mainly stop as required by traffic signals, but other-wise tend to ensure that their vehicle remains mobile and fits within, and con-tributes to, a persistent and recognisably orderly flow of traffic. For drivers,remaining mobile might involve interaction with passengers for specific



driving related activities, such as turning at junctions or negotiating a route(Laurier et al. 2008; Haddington 2010; Haddington and Keisanen 2009;Mondada 2005). Also, rather than pulling over and stopping, drivers mightartfully craft and time their engagement in non-driving activities, so-calleddriving distractions such as making or receiving a mobile phone call, eating,handling objects, or talking with passengers, to prioritise driving demandsand so best allow for the car’s continued movement (Laurier 2004; Hadding-ton and Rauniomaa 2010; Nevile and Haddington 2010). In yet another formof transport, and unlike car drivers, pilots require airflow over the wings forlift and so can not simply stop their aircraft mid-flight. Pilots do not haveeven the option of pulling over, but must perform tasks and be supportedby others (air traffic controllers) to continue moving and so remain airborne,eventually to land and stop at an acceptable location (Nevile 2004a, 2005;Arminen, Auvinen, and Palukka 2010). For pilots, stillness (immobility) isnot a possibility. In mobility settings like these, participants interact to coor-dinate their activities to promote, or even ensure, continued mobility.

Stopping and stillness can require large-scale organisation and coordi-nation (e.g. stopping a train or landing an airplane), whereas in other casesstopping and stillness can be fleeting and unnoticeable. Whatever the set-ting or situation, stillness and stopping are the outcome of participants’ con-certed attention and action. They are accomplished relative to emerging localcontingencies and to the state and progress of the social actions underway.Participants need to determine and realise together when, why, and for howlong, occasions of stillness are appropriate for their jointly conducted activ-ities, and then how they are acceptably to initiate or return to mobility.

We can see from contributions in this book that periods of stillness, asoccurring relative to a flow of mobile activities, may share some character-istics with silence, as occurring within a flow of talk. Just as silence does notindicate that nothing of interactional significance is happening (e.g. partici-pants might be engaged in some embodied action, gesture etc.), stillnessdoes not indicate that nothing of significance is happening for mobility.Instead, stillness, like silence, can be interpreted as meaningful action, to bedoing something, to be noticeable and accountable, and can thus contributeto the real-time conduct and understanding of unfolding activities (see Hirs-chauer 2005 for an analysis of unacquainted people in elevators). Withinmobility studies, researchers have also begun to reflect on the experience andpractice of stillness (e.g. Bissell and Fuller 2011). By examining interactionand mobility we can see how stillness, like silence in the flow of talk, can be asignificant and available resource for social action. The chapters in this vol-ume address some of the following issues on stillness and immobility:



– how participants organise stillness in and around mobility, and for consti-tuting some larger activity;

– how participants cooperate to accomplish moving into and out of still-ness;

– how participants orient to the value or demands for continued mobility,when stillness might somehow be problematic, or even impossible;

– how stillness contributes to, or allows for, particular social actions;– how participants embody and accomplish stillness relative to salient fea-

tures of the material and spatial surround;– how stillness is remarkable and accountable to others;– what influences the timing of stillness and its duration.

4.2.3. Timing and ordering mobility

Mobility can be examined and understood for its temporal and ordered real-isation relative to processes of social interaction. Participants coordinatetheir contributions to interaction with the demands, resources and practicesof being mobile. That is, participants time and order their mobility activitiesrelative to their talk and embodied conduct within and for the sequentialdevelopment of social actions, and also relative to features and changes inthe material and spatial surround. In simplest terms, some actions occurbefore mobility, other actions may be concurrent with mobility, and stillothers may occur after mobility.

Before mobility, participants’ talk and embodied conduct can anticipateand prepare for, and enable, mobile conduct and events. Interaction can getpeople moving: participants can orient to projected mobility as requiring par-ticular interactional work. For example, giving directions to someone for get-ting to a location, perhaps including instructions for how to move or orientthe body along the way, can occur prior to any actual mobile activity. Psathas(1979, 1986, 1991) examines the language and other resources (e.g. maps) fordirection-giving as an organised and collaboratively produced activity (seealso Mondada 2009a). He shows how participants’ utterances, emergingsequentially over the course of interaction, affect and shape the developmentof the route to the destination. In a related study, Psathas (1992) considersinteraction between an instructor and a visually impaired learner for a lessonon long cane mobility. In a very different setting, airline pilots interact to per-form tasks before initiating new movements for their aircraft (e.g. changingaltitude or direction), including before flight by completing checklists to starttheir engines, and talking with externally located parties (controllers), before‘pushing back’ from the terminal, or beginning to taxi (Nevile 2004a). As a



final example, Büscher (2007) shows how emergency team members (para-medics, police, fire fighters), arriving at the scene, interact, and use gesturesand other embodied conduct, to assess the situation and identify and resolveambiguities, before moving to specific locations to respond.

Some actions are concurrent with mobility and are coordinated andaccomplished in interaction with whatever mobility demands, and maybe areonly relevant or possible during mobility, when participants are on the move.Some actions serve mobility, to keep participants moving, or moving in cer-tain ways. For example, people might take note of passing features of theexternal surround to prompt and inform interaction for conducting newmobility activities, such as a turn at a junction or a decision to follow aparticular route in cars (Haddington and Keisanen 2009; Haddington 2010;Haddington, Keisanen, and Nevile in press). Or, on a minibus, the conduc-tor monitors journey progress for approaching stops, and his call for a stopinitiates a drop-off sequence in which a passenger can signal an intention toexit, and the conductor then relays this information to the driver to stop thevehicle (D’hondt 2009). In another form of transport, airline pilots mostlymonitor their cockpit displays for evidence of flight progress, and then inter-act, possibly also with parties outside the cockpit (e.g. air traffic controllers),before making a turn or a change in altitude, or before progressing to a nextstage of flight such as taking off and landing (Nevile 2004a, 2005). Whenflight progress indicates that some action for a next mobile action is due, buthas not yet been initiated, pilots or others can interact to ensure the activity isundertaken, and mobility is not vulnerable (Nevile 2007; Arminen, Auvinen,and Palukka 2010). These interactions on the move often generate specificaction formats and turn formats, particularly adjusted to the mobile tem-porality: grammatical, as well as embodied resources are fitted to theongoing mobility.

Other actions concurrent with mobility may not contribute directly toactivities for being mobile. Mobile participants also interact to conduct activ-ities of ordinary social life, for doing whatever it is that makes them a couple,a family, friends, or work colleagues. For example, drivers and passengers inthe car might talk about family matters, such as children’s school perform-ance and homework, or something of interest outside the car might benoticed and become the subject of talk (Laurier et al. 2008; Keisanen inpress). Or, car occupants might do office work, or make and receive phonecalls, or talk about and share food and objects (Laurier 2004; Haddington,Keisanen, and Nevile in press; Nevile and Haddington 2010). Indeed, thedistinction between interaction for or with mobility may not be always beclear, and participants can shift between the two.



Or, actions may occur after mobility activity. Interaction might be occa-sioned when participants have in some sense passed or arrived at a certainlocation (see Laurier 2002). These cases might be included in the interestsand findings of studies discussed immediately above, but include especiallysettings and situations where the participants treat some activity, howeverbriefly, as completed, and as making now relevant and possible a period ofstillness or immobility (see also section 4.2.2). For example, in her study ofthe work of landscape architects, Büscher (2006) shows how interaction con-cerning the landscape, for informing planning and decisions, is not possibleuntil after the participants have moved and stopped at a specific place whichaffords a sought-after view. Similarly, Psathas (1992) considers how theevaluation of some instructed mobility activity can occur only after the activ-ity has been attempted and is available for evaluation.

Lastly, it is worth highlighting that mobility activities occur in real time:they begin at some moment, they have some duration, and they end atsome moment. So participants might treat mobility activities, relative topassing time, as timely, early or late, delayed, hastened, urgent, slowed,extended, cut short, and so on. For example, transport controllers attendto timetables which constrain the appropriateness of mobility (Heath andLuff 2000). Therefore, while in some settings and situations mobility canbe experienced and accomplished as momentary and fleeting, in others itis sustained, or may be enduring and seemingly continuous. Participants ininteraction therefore organise their talk and embodied conduct to arrangeand realise mobility not just according to the sequential organisation ofsocial actions but also with orientation to the moment in time and to thepassing of time (e.g. Keevallik this volume; Licoppe and Morel this vol-ume). The contributions in this book concern some of the followingissues:

– how mobility activities are reflexively ordered and realised in actual pas-sing time with and for the sequential organisation of interaction;

– how mobility affords or constrains the timing and order of social actions,as well as grammatical choices and turn constructions;

– how practices and resources for interaction, such as language and embo-died and material conduct, enable or impact timing and order for mobil-ity;

– how participants over time orient through interaction to visible and physi-cal changes in mobile surroundings;

– how participants prioritise and account for timing mobility activities;– how relevantly ‘next’ mobility activities are established and enacted;



– how participants orient to and resolve ‘mobility puzzles’, such as why-that-here, where-are-we-now, what-is-here-now, what-is-visible-now, andso on.

4.2.4. Mobility, interactional ecologies and context

As has been argued above, social actions emerge and unfold in real time andin a situated way. Their production is tightly connected to the sequential,material and cultural context of interaction, as well as to the spatial ecologyof the situation. In ethnomethodology the notion of reflexivity has been used(see Garfinkel and Sacks 1970; Heritage 1984) to refer to the ways in whichsocial action is tied to the contextual circumstances of its organisation: itboth adjusts to context (i.e. is context-dependent) and transforms it (i.e.is context-renewing) (Duranti and Goodwin 1992; Heritage 1984). Conse-quently, for understanding social actions we need to take into account boththe available sequential and material context and the spatial ecology in whichactions are produced in order to see how that context modifies their produc-tion, as well as is continuously constituted and accomplished for practicalpurposes by the participants’ actions.

Considering mobility – or mobile ecology – together with the reflexivityof action, provides an opportunity to reconceptualise what can be under-stood as the context of interaction. First, mobile actions and activities takeplace in architectured or made spaces in which environmental features andartefacts can be seen to constrain action. One can think about obligatorypathways in exhibitions, in streets and in subway tunnels, or road bumps,junctions and double bends on the road. One can also think about designedliving environments regulating actions of walking and driving, slowing down,entering, moving in, stopping and exiting. Within a praxeological and inter-actional perspective, these material and seemingly “external” features of theenvironment are in fact made relevant and used in a specific indexical wayonly within mobile action and interaction.

Second, mobile action unfolds in spatial configurations that are estab-lished within and by the interaction itself. This is the case of mobile actionsengaged in space-making activities, where participants are active in actuallyforming and building spaces and places – such as in architecture offices andat construction sites. This is also the case of body arrangements and distribu-tions which design, through their mutual positioning, a specific interactionalspace that can be changed or even dissolved as the interaction goes on – suchas when people assemble around a street artist in the public space (Lan et al.this volume).



Third, the body itself is inextricably intertwined with the world andalready constitutes a kind of space. As Lynch (1991: 54) notes, Merleau-Ponty (1962) speaks of “embodied spatiality”, considering that “our move-ments in space establish the predicates under which we encounter things,including their standard modes of orientation, typical facets and fronts, dis-criminable surfaces and points of entry, boundaries, synesthetic integrityand – in Gibson’s terms (1979) – their ‘affordances’”. It is the body engagedin situated action which defines the local relevance – i.e. the local feature ofthe spatial environment emerging with the current activity, its practical pur-poses, as a situated social accomplishment. This resonates with the idea of“environmentally coupled gesture” (Ch. Goodwin 2007b), echoing Goff-man’s proposal that “to describe the gesture, let alone uncover its meaning,we might then have to introduce the human and material setting in which thegesture is made. […] The individual gestures with the immediate environ-ment, not only with his body, and so we must introduce this environment insome systematic way.” (Goffman 1964: 133).

Thus, the local ecology is transformed as mobile action moves through it.In some cases, the ecology can be seen as being discovered as mobile actionunfolds; in other cases, the emergent ecology can be considered, more rad-ically, as being produced by mobile action itself. More generally, mobilityunfolds within evolving ecologies that are reflexively changed by the very mobileaction itself. Below, we give some examples of these configurations.

The spatial context of mobile action is discovered in activities such asfollowing instructions in way-finding, in which the environment is activelyscanned and inspected, as participants move through it, searching for the rel-evant landmarks indicated in the instructions (Psathas 1987). In this case,new features of the landscape are being noticed, and made relevant, in away that reflexively gives sense to the instructions; reversely, the relevantenvironment is reconfigured in the very activity of moving through it whileinterpreting instructions. Psathas (1992) gives another example of the way inwhich the environment is actively explored by the mobile action of the par-ticipants, when he analyses a garden lesson in which a blind student who isbeing instructed to use a cane and navigate around a garden discoversthe architectural form of the garden’s walls by positioning his body in anadequate way, touching the walls, feeling where the sun is, hearing where thestreet is, and thereby reconstructing the entire surrounding space – as it isrevealed by this embodied, tactile and auditory perception.

The spatial context of mobile action is actively produced in activities thatinvolve various forms of space-making. For example, activities of rearrang-ing furniture in a room, transforming it from a meeting room into a theatre



in which a movie will be watched (Hausendorf in press) clearly show thatmobile action may materially transform space. The rearrangement of anurban zone during an exercise by an emergency team, blocking roads, for-bidding access to usual places, diverting the traffic (Büscher 2007), also pro-duces an active transformation of space, on a larger scale.

Nevertheless, mobile space-making activities do not always imply a physi-cal rearrangement of material-architectural-urban surroundings: mobileactivities can produce new ecologies by just disposing and arranging the par-ticipant’s bodies within space in a specific way. This is for instance the casewhen people meet in a public space and form a circle or a face-to-faceformation in the opening of an encounter (Ashcraft and Scheflen 1976; Ken-don 1977; Mondada 2009a) – producing a new context of interaction bygoing through a series of mobile steps, such as sighting, walking in a con-vergent way, approaching, and finally, converging to, hand shaking, hugging,kissing and touching the other’s body. As a more complex case, combiningthe disposition of material and bodily resources, the ongoing arrangement ofa film set, disposing cameras, technicians, actors and the film director in sev-eral formations, assigned to specific areas and interacting in distinct partici-pation frameworks also actively creates a new ecology by and for the activityof film making (Schmitt in press).

More generally, mobile actions and interactions are achieved within evolving

ecologies, reflexively embedded in the organisation of talk and action, bothstructured by them and structuring them. For example, pedestrians walking,crossing, queuing, bypassing within a crowded square, street or subway tun-nel are a constitutive part of the public space ecology itself, contributing to it,and producing its accountability and visibility (Lee and Watson 1993; Watson2005). Likewise, the car driving within the ecology of the traffic contributesto its changing configuration, its fluidity, thickness, congestion, etc. To takeanother setting, football players running across the field towards the goal alsomodify with their trajectories the entire ecology of the game (Mondada thisvolume), achieving moments of attack and defence, as in accomplishing atouchdown (Ch. Goodwin 2003a: 22–23), creating configurations in move-ment (Fele 1997). Decision-making in these settings involves participantstaking into consideration both the trajectories of action and the changingcontext as it is transformed by the very mobile action, as shown in studiesof driving (Haddington, Keisanen, and Nevile in press; Haddington this vol-ume; Laurier this volume) and flying (Nevile 2004a, 2005, this volume).

Within yet another perspective and scale, interactional studies on deixisshow that deictic reference is not just a context-dependent phenomenon, asif context would pre-exist, but a context-renewing practice, adjusting talk to



the context but also transforming the context to adjust it to the deictic prac-tice going on. This is particularly vivid in cases in which prior to producinga deictic form, participants delay their actions to reorient within space, bymoving or transforming the immediate surroundings to adjust the form forthe imminent referential action (Hanks 1990; Hindmarsh and Heath 2000).These reorientations can be minimal but can also involve the entire mobilebody of the participants, such as when they walk in order to find a betterplace from which to point (Mondada 2005, in press a). Talk adjusts to thesecontextual transformations, with hitches, delays, and hesitations co-occur-ring while obstacles encountered in space are either transformed, removedor bypassed. More generally, the emergent construction of turns-at-talkorient to the details of walking movements in which speakers are engaged:Relieu (1999) shows how turn design is sensitive to the spatial ecologyencountered by speakers talking and walking (see also Haddington and Keis-anen 2009: 1949). Likewise, Broth and Mondada (in prep) and Broth andLundström (this volume) show how, in guided visits, turn completion iscoordinated with walking away, and turn increments are related with stop-ping or slowing the movement of walking away.

With respect to long-standing discussions about context in ethnometho-dology and conversation analysis (Lynch 1991; Drew 2002; Duranti andGoodwin 1992; Schegloff 1992), but also in workplace studies (Brun-Cottan1991; Heath, Luff, and Sellen 1997; Suchman 1996), the focus on mobilityand evolving ecologies reflexively achieved by mobile action brings someoriginal issues in the foreground, by highlighting the importance of the body,the materiality of the environment, the oriented-to feature constituting thelocal ecology. In a general way, these dimensions have to be considered notin isolation, but in an integrated way. For instance, Ch. Goodwin showswith the notion of “contextual configuration” the necessity to consider therelation between various multimodal resources (called “semiotic field”), theorganisation of the sequentiality of action, the environment and the objectspopulating it – which are not effective per se but become effective as theyare mobilised within action. The contributions in this book analyse and dealwith the following issues on mobile ecology and context:

– how social actions and activities are reflexively tied to the continuouslychanging mobile ecology and context, e.g. their landmarks, spatial fea-tures or objects;

– how the mobile context and its features are integrated into the organi-sation of social interaction, and how they are relevantly connected tosocial actions and activities;



– how talk and social actions are shaped and modified by the mobile ecol-ogy and context;

– how the mobile context affords particular social actions and activities;– how social actions and activities are coordinated with respect to the

mobile ecology and context.

4.2.5. Co-present and embodied conduct: Moving together

‘Moving together’ can be conceptualised in two ways. First, people are con-tinuously moving among other ‘vehicular units’ (Goffman 2010: 6 [1971])and thereby have to shape their direction, speed or pace with respect themovement of others. Second, people are frequently mobile as groups or‘withs’ (Goffman 2010: 19 [1971]). In mobile groups, people not only coor-dinate their mobility with respect to other vehicular units, but also adjust toand reorganise their actions, co-presence and mobility with respect to themembers in the group.

For people moving among others, Goffman (2010 [1971]) used the notion‘vehicular unit’ to refer to mobile “shells” that by following traffic codes tryto avoid collision and mutual obstruction. Similarly, early ethnomethodo-logical research was interested in walking and the ‘navigational problems’that it involves. In an early study based on a short video-taped corpus, Ryaveand Schenkein (1974) studied walkers and how they are confronted withsuch issues, how they avoid collisions, and how they manage the constraintsposed by the environment and other people. They noted that the fact thatthese challenges are resolved in unproblematic ways reveal “the nature of thework executed routinely by participant walkers” (1974: 267). Thus, walk-ing among other pedestrians is crucially based on the practical and situatedachievement of ‘togetherness’.

In addition to moving among other mobile units, people frequently moveas groups or as formations, for example when they walk, cycle, drive, flyor dance together. Conceptually, this idea can be connected to Goffman’s(1963) and Kendon’s (1977) work on how interlocutors form particular spa-tial arrangements and formations, or ‘withs’ when they interact with eachother. Establishing, maintaining, entering and leaving such formationsinvolves constant and explicit embodied and interactional work. Sucharrangements are also visible and recognisable to outsiders and therebypeople do not usually walk through, interrupt, enter into or join them with-out accounting for such actions (Goffman 1963).

Similarly, maintaining such mobile formations or mobile ‘withs’ (seeMcIlvenny this volume, Jensen 2010a, 2010b) requires constant coordi-



nation and interactional work in order to be kept dynamically together: theyare constantly transformed, shaped and reorganised from the inside, forexample when people start walking together (Broth and Mondada in prep;Depperman, Schmitt, and Mondada 2010) maintain proximity and pace, orspeed up and slow down, or manage turns and stops together (see Col-linson 2006; Broth and Lundström this volume; vom Lehn this volume).Closer examinations on walking situations have also shown that a mobilegroup does not walk uniformly but is constantly rearranged with somemembers anticipating the next step or lagging behind (Mondada in press a,in press b).

Also a “mobile with” is available and recognisable to other mobile actors,which becomes evident in how people tend to avoid walking through a mobile“with” and disrupting the togetherness of the individuals that constitute it(De Stefani 2011, this volume). Two mobile units can also converge, forexample when various couples or groups meet and merge, thereby constitut-ing one unique interactional space (Mondada 2009a). Reversely, people canalso display that they are not with, exhibiting civil inattention and minimisingthe effects of co-presence (Hirschauer 2005; Sudnow 1972).

Mobile “withs” are not just coordinated from inside the group. The tra-jectories of mobile groups are also affected when participants move togetherin the context of specific activities in correspondingly demanding environ-ments which offer material and spatial constraints and affordances. Forexample, shopping in a supermarket relies on the orientations towards spe-cific objects to buy (Francis and Hester 2003; De Stefani 2011, this volume),walking through an exhibition relies on the orientation to specific exhibits oron following an invited or constrained path (Hindmarsh, Heath, vom Lehn,and Cleverly 2005; vom Lehn this volume).

Other revealing constraints on accountable forms of “walking as a group”are observable when studying the navigation of blind persons. For instance,Relieu (1994) shows how a blind person practically and embodily analysesa junction before crossing, and how (s)he might refuse the help of otherpedestrians in order to cross it alone. In this case, crossing together vs. aloneis the outcome of a negotiation in which categories as well as category-bound activities are actively and locally defined by the co-present individ-uals – showing how the visibility and accountability of pedestrian practices isnot always taken-for-granted or convergent.

Walking is probably the most fundamental form of interactionally coor-dinated mobile activity. Nevertheless, the above considerations can offerinsights into more complex and technologically-mediated forms of movingtogether, such as cycling, driving and flying in formations. The chapters in



this volume respond to some of the following issues on how participants aremobile together:

– how participants coordinate their mobility as a mobile “with” in andthrough interaction;

– how a mobile “with” adjusts its mobility as a group with respect to thematerial and spatial configuration and other mobile individuals or groups;

– how participants in a mobile “with” collaboratively coordinate suchmobile practices as starting, stopping, turning and arriving;

– how different spatial configurations and constraints impact the partici-pants’ interaction (e.g. the interior of the car, distance in the surroundingenvironment).

4.2.6. Mediated mobility: technologies and objects in mobile situations

The way in which technologies affect and enable mobility is a wide topic,treated by various disciplines, ranging from sociology and geography tocomputer and technology studies. Within ethnomethodology and conver-sation analysis, research done within the domain of workplace studies hasalso touched some of these issues. More particularly, the field has producedstudies that have developed our understanding of how people, thanks totechnologically-mediated interactions, can talk and act together, collaborateand cooperate, although they do not share the same location. Sometimesthis perspective has implied how people coordinate not only distant but alsomobile action. In this book, several papers contribute to this perspective inparticular, by explicitly showing how mobility is organised in and throughtechnologically-mediated interactions.

Mediated mobile action can be studied from a variety of perspectives. Onthe one hand, in the case of coordinated mobility systems, one can study howmobile action of others is controlled from a distance, typically in control rooms.These approaches often favour the controller’s perspective over the con-trolled. On the other hand, the focus can be on mobile persons themselves, asthey enable, organise and control their own mobility, for example in the caror the cockpit. But technologically-mediated mobility does not only supportspecialised tasks and activities. It is, increasingly, also a key characteristic ofour everyday life: when we move around, talk on the phone while walking,visit a place with technologically-enhanced guides, engage through computergames, and so on. In the following, we expand on these different perspectives.

Within workplace studies, the notion of “centre of coordination” (Such-man 1996, 1997) has been crucial for characterising contemporary work-



spaces. The notion refers to the fact that social actors can work together andcollaborate even though they are distributed in different, often distant anddiscrepant places. This is made possible by technological devices that enablethe coordination of people, equipment and objects from a distance.

These centres can be engaged in the coordination of mobility at variousscales, from organising the landings and departures of airplanes (Suchman1997) and the circulation of underground trains (Heath and Luff 1992; Luffand Heath 1998; Heath and Luff 2000) to emergency teams searching forpeople and objects in limited areas by at the same time walking around andtalking with remote colleagues in order to coordinate dispatch of assistance(Bergman 1993; Büscher 2007; Mondada 2011). Traffic control (in aviationand underground transportation) and emergency interventions have beenthe most perspicuous settings in which mobile coordination has been observed.Their careful documentation reveals that mobile coordination relies on themutual determination of the action of (often immobile) coordinators andmobile coordinated actors – the latter following instructions of the formerand the former adjusting their instructions to the action and contingenciesof the latter (Nevile 2004a; Arminen, Auvinen, and Palukka 2010). Technol-ogies provide not only a way to communicate at distance, but can also enablea shared ecological awareness. In other words, they enable parallel forms ofaccess to the environment in which the action takes place or where the prob-lem has to be solved. They also help build a common orientation towardsvisible events and courses of action that need to be attended and respondedto. Consequently, they contribute to the situated and shared understandingof ‘what is going on’ (Suchman 1997; see also Goodwin and Goodwin 1996;Heath, Luff, and Svensson 2002; Heath, Svensson, and Hindmarsh 2002;Nevile 2009; Froholdt 2010; Koskela, Arminen, and Palukka this volume).The definition of the very ecology or “context” of these interactions is theresult of incessant and negotiated activities across heterogeneous spaces(Arminen and Weilenmann 2009; Dourish 2004; Mondada 2011).

Technologies can also be used to mediate action as it is organised, coor-dinated and controlled by mobile actors directly engaged in mobile action – forexample, and with different degrees of complexity, while driving an under-ground train (Heath, Hindmarsh, and Luff 1999), flying in the aircraft cock-pit (Nevile 2004a, this volume) or individually or collectively driving a car(Haddington, Keisanen, and Nevile in press; Haddington this volume; Laur-ier this volume). For control rooms, the work of emergency teams hasbeen primarily studied from the perspective of the call-takers and help dis-patchers, and less within the perspective of the professionals dispatched onthe ground: the latter also are engaged in driving and walking, in assembling



a coherent view of the locally relevant ecology, through the mobilisationof their body, talk at distance, and various technologies (Bergmann 1993;Büscher 2007; Landgren 2005; Mondada 2011, in press b).

Non-professional, everyday activities also involve more and more technol-ogies that mediate mobility in diverse settings. The use of mobile phonesprovides for a well-known example. The question, from a mobility perspec-tive, is not only whether the technological differences between landline andmobile phones imply structural interactional differences in the organisationof conversations (Schegloff 2002: 297, see the discussion between Hutchbyand Barnett 2005 and Arminen and Leinonen 2006), but also concerns theimpact of mobility enabled by mobile phones on the organisation of tele-phone talk as well as of situated activities. In this sense, one can consider thatthe mobility of these phones shapes the characteristics of the calls: the factthat phones are used in mobile situations and actions generates practicalproblems both for phone owner and for call recipients. One such practicalproblem often solved through interaction concerns the location of the tele-phone’s owner, which is evident in the recurrent practice of asking questionsregarding location (see Arminen 2002; Arminen and Leinonen 2006; Laur-ier 2001; Relieu 2002). Other practical challenges involve the use of mobilephones in complex mobile situations, for example when driving a car (seeHaddington and Rauniomaa 2011). Additionally, mobile embodied practicesachieved while phoning are being reconfigured by the technology so thatthey do not just involve the person speaking on the phone but also otherpeople around. For example, Relieu (2002, 2006) has analysed the ecology ofsuch mobile phone uses, Relieu and Morel (2004) have studied the mobileformations of walking people while one of them is on the phone, andHaddington and Rauniomaa (2011) have shown how passengers in cars areoften requested to and help drivers answer a ringing phone.

Mobile phones can also be used in non-mobile activities and for purposesother than mobility. They can also support mobile actions, for example whenone person is guiding another, such as through the supermarket, when par-ticipants organise meetings after they have discovered they are near eachother (Licoppe and Morel this volume) or when tourists use their smartphones in order to find their way and learn something about the place theyare visiting (Brown and Chalmers 2003). Smart phones can integrate a rangeof other technological tools supporting mobility, such as interactive mapsand GPS. Maps, in their electronic or paper format, are classical tools thatenable mobility, and their situated use as a resource for mobility is also begin-ning to be investigated (see Brown and Laurier 2005).



Another everyday use of mobile technologies concerns game activities,which integrate some pervasive feature of professional uses of technologiesand centres of coordination. This is the case, on the one hand, with videogames, which use various technologies for representing, building and navi-gating in space. These technologies can support the mobile exploration anddirection of avatars in virtual worlds. In such situations, mobile actions areorganised, coordinated and controlled by immobile participants who sit infront of computer screens and identify partially or totally with the move-ments of their avatars, in and even out of the game (Keating 2008; Keatingand Sunakawa 2011; Mondada in press c, this volume). On the other hand,there are games that involve players’ mobile actions in urban territories, asin outdoor mobile multiplayer games. These games are played with smartphones or PDAs and they involve active searches of points to collect, objectsto negotiate, avatars to converge with, within the environment, as well aspossible encounters, or just forms of co-proximity, with other players (Bark-huus et al. 2005; Licoppe and Inada 2009).

As we can see, technologies can play a range of different roles for mobil-ity, both for controlling, instructing and coordinating mobility of others atdistance and for being used by social actors in order to enable, support andmediate their own mobile action as they are on the move. These uses of tech-nologies are pervasive both in professional life – in highly sophisticated andspecialised settings – and in everyday life, in which advanced devices canreshape ordinary activities such as wayfinding, visiting, meeting and playing.Chapters collected here consider or can inform at least the following issues:

– how people interact through mobile technologies, and how such technol-ogies enable and are used for interaction while on the move;

– how mobility is accomplished with the help of technologies (e.g. GPSnavigators), for example by coordinating mobility from a distance, orbeing instructed from a distance;

– how technologies enable, support, facilitate or impede mobility;– how technologies provide opportunities for particular forms of social

arrangement and participation, such as encounters and meetings;– how technologies impact the design or constitution of everyday actions

and activities;– how technologies feature in teaching and instructing mobility;– how people coordinate the mobility of virtual actors and avatars, for

example in video games or on the internet.



5. Interface with mobility studies

The studies of interaction and mobility in this book provide new and freshinsights into a research area that is broadly interested in the organisation ofsocial action in ordinary naturally-occurring interaction, namely ethnome-thodology, conversation analysis and multimodal interaction analysis. How-ever, since its main foci lie at the intersection of interaction and mobility, itcan also be rewarding to briefly consider how the book’s studies connect toand complement research in a multidisciplinary field that has been said torepresent a ‘mobility turn’ in social sciences, namely mobility studies (see e.g.Adey 2010; Cresswell 2006; Hannam, Sheller, and Urry 2006; Thrift 2007;Urry 2007). Much influential and extensive research has been produced inthis field highlighting the centrality and omnipresence of mobility for oureveryday lives. By building on different perspectives and understandings,especially in sociology and geography, it has dealt with different kinds ofmobilities, in different scales, and their connections and interdependencies.At the same time it has continued to transfer and speak into new disciplinesand areas (see Adey 2010; Cresswell 2006: 1; Thrift 2007: 5; Urry 2007: 3).

To date, research in the mobility paradigm has studied and conceptual-ised mobility from various perspectives and used different methodologies(see Büscher, Urry, and Witchger 2011a: 8–13). On the one hand, suchresearch has approached mobility from a large-scale perspective and shownfor example how mobility is laden with sociological meanings, and howmobility is frequently attached, with differing implications, to a wide rangeof ideologies and categorical identities (Cresswell 2006) and economy(Paterson 2007). It has also investigated mobility as the geographical andglobal movements of people, with respect to such phenomena as migration,tourism and transport. It has shown how important it is to consider whetheror how people are able to (or not) or entitled (or not) to be mobile (Han-nam, Sheller, and Urry 2006; Urry 2007). It has considered movements ofobjects, materials, goods and capitals, and the flow of ideas or other formsof information (Cresswell 2006; Urry 2007), shed light on how differ-ent economic, social and cultural relations are constituted in and throughmobility (Büscher, Urry, and Witchger 2011a: 6; Urry 2007) and dis-cussed the challenges concerning mobility, environment, justice and secur-ity (D’Andrea, Ciolfi, and Gray 2011). Additionally, it has studied how newtechnological innovations afford and facilitate mobility (Urry 2007: 7–8).Some of these issues and phenomena are frequently analysed vis-à-vis suchnotions as globalisation, mobile communication, tourism, global movement,travel, traffic and automobility.



On the other hand, some scholars have argued that it is also beneficial toconceptualise mobility from a more local perspective, and so have begunto talk about micro-mobilities and mobile practices (Urry 2007: 267; Adey2010: xviii; see also McIlvenny this volume). Some have approached mobilityas experiences, and how these mobile experiences are represented and com-municated to others through talk and writing. Others have argued thatmobilities are more than experiences or interpretations, or what others cantell about them (Adey 2010: 135). This latter approach draws on phenom-enological or “non-representational” theories (Adey 2010: 134; Ingold 2004;Thrift 2007) and argues that mobility should be conceptualised as somethingthat social actors do not think about and are not conscious of, as a pre-cognitive, embodied and often habitudinal action, as something that is done

(Thrift 2007). Further, Urry (2007: 7–12) notes that mobile experiences aresocial, interactional and embodied, that are tied to particular places and sites,and also that technologies can support or sometimes impede mobility (seealso Cresswell 2006: 3). Conceptually and theoretically similar argumentshave also been put forward by Seamon (1980) and Farnell (1994, 1999),although both conceptualise movement and mobility broadly to includeboth movements of body parts, such as gestures, and the displacement ofbodies in space, as in walking and dancing.

However, what is typically forgotten from analysis are talk and interaction(although see recently Büscher, Urry, and Witchger 2011a: 12). As we canrecall from the methodological discussion earlier (and see Psathas 1976:385), the use of audio-video recordings as data for detailed analysis of socialpractices and actions, which is the routine way of doing analysis in ethnome-thodology and conversation analysis, can indeed give access to ‘micro-mo-bile’ conduct that would not otherwise be available for analysis. But further,the interest in ‘micro-mobilities’ in mobility studies provides a fruitful the-oretical substrate for connecting ‘mobility’ with concepts that are importantfor researchers who are interested in the practical organisation of everydayinteraction and how people ‘do mobility’; namely ‘action’, ‘activity’, ‘collab-oration’, ‘embodiment’, ‘interaction’, and ‘practice’. What ethnomethodo-logical and conversation analytic research generally can offer to the studyof ‘micro-mobilities’ and mobile practices is an empirical, inductive anddetailed analysis of interaction that attends to detail of how mobility fea-tures in human practices, actions and activities, and thereby it can show howmobility is treated as a relevant and practical feature of context by partici-pants in and for their social interaction (see also McIlvenny this volume).More specifically, as the studies in this volume show, this research canaddress for example the following interests:



– how mobility is constituted, structured and made possible through socialinteraction, as a collaborative, interactional and situated accomplishment;

– how people, as active participants in the social world, orient and respondto mobility in and through their everyday lives, through talk and interac-tion, and thereby display their local experiences and understandings ofmobility and its meaning and significance for them;

– how mobility occasions and makes possible particular social actions andactivities;

– how participants organise the mobility of others, often in complex set-tings, and mediated through technologies.

We hope the studies of this book will contribute both to research on inter-action interested in the sequentiality of social actions in different and com-plex settings and situations, especially within ethnomethodology, conver-sation analysis and multimodal interaction analysis, and also more widely toresearch on mobility, by raising new issues, questions, concerns and con-cepts which can enlighten and empower future directions and approaches.Together, the studies highlight features of social interaction, including lan-guage, embodied conduct, and spatial and material orientation, for beingmobile, for interacting on the move. They show the practices of social actionby which we organise and conduct activities in everyday and working situ-ations, so that mobility becomes a ubiquitous feature of our lives.

References

Adey, Peter (2010): Mobility. London: Routledge.Allen, Gary L. (2000): Principles and practices for communicating route knowledge.

Applied Cognitive Psychology 14(4): 333–359Arminen, Ilkka (2005): Sequential order and sequence structure: the case of incom-

mensurable studies on mobile phone calls. Discourse Studies 7(6): 649–662.Arminen, Ilkka and Minna Leinonen (2006): Mobile phone call openings: tailoring

answers to personalized summonses. Discourse Studies 8(3): 339–368.Arminen, Ilkka and Alexandra Weilenmann (2009): Mobile presence and intimacy –

reshaping social actions in mobile contextual configuration. Journal of Pragmatics41(10): 1905–1923.

Arminen, Ilkka, Petra Auvinen and Hannele Palukka (2010): Repairs as the lastorderly provided defense of safety in aviation. Journal of Pragmatics 42(2): 443–465.

Ashcraft, Norman and Albert E. Scheflen (1976): People Space: The Making and Breakingof Human Boundaries. New York: Anchor.

Auvinen, Petra (2009): Achievement of Intersubjectivity in Airline Cockpit Interaction. Tam-pere: University of Tampere Press.

Barkhuus, Louise, Matthew Chalmers, Paul Tennent, Malcolm Hall, Marek Bell, ScottSherwood and Barry Brown (2005): Picking pockets on the lawn: the development



of tactics and strategies in a mobile game. In: Proceedings of UbiComp 2005. LectureNotes in Computer Science, vol. 3660, 358–374.

Bergmann, Jörg R. (1993): Alarmiertes Verstehen: Kommunikation in Feuerwehr-notrufen. [Alarmed understanding: Communication in emergency calls to the FireDepartment] In: Thomas Jung and Stefan Müller-Doohm (eds.), “Wirklichkeit” imDeutungsprozess. Verstehen und Methoden in den Kultur- und Sozialwissenschaften [“Real-ity” in sense-making processes. Understanding and methods in cultural studiesand social sciences], 283–328. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

Bissell, David and Gillian Fuller (eds.) (2011): Stillness in a Mobile World. Abingdon:Routledge.

Blom, Paul, Mary A. Peterson, Lynn Nadel and Merrill F. Garrett (eds.) (1996): Lan-guage and Space. Boston: MIT Press.

Bolden, Galina B. (2003): Multiple modalities in collaborative turn sequences. Gesture3(2): 187–212.

Broth, Mathias (2008): The studio interaction as a contextual resource for TV-pro-duction. Journal of Pragmatics 40(5): 904–926.

Broth, Mathias (2009): Seeing through screens, hearing through speakers: managingdistant studio space in television control room interaction. Journal of Pragmatics41(10): 1998–2016.

Broth, Mathias and Lorenza Mondada (in prep): Moving away. The systematic organ-ization of movement in sequence closings.

Brown, Barry and Matthew Chalmers (2003): Tourism and mobile technology. In:ECSCW’03 Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Computer Supported Coop-erative Work, 335–354. Norwell: Kluwer.

Brown, Barry and Eric Laurier (2005): Maps and journeys: an ethnomethodologicalinvestigation. Carthographica 40(3): 17–33.

Brun-Cottan, Francoise (1991): Talk in the workplace: occupational relevance.Research on Language and Social Interaction 24: 277–295.

Button, Graham (ed.) (1993): Technology in Working Order : Studies of Work, Interaction, andTechnology. London: Routledge.

Büscher, Monika (2006): Vision in motion. Environment and Planning A 38(2): 281–299.Büscher, Monika (2007): Interaction in motion: embodied conduct in emergency

teamwork. In: Lorenza Mondada and Vassiliki Markaki (eds.) Online MultimediaProceedings of the 2nd International Society for Gesture Studies Conference: Interacting Bodies,15–18 June 2005, Lyon, France.

Büscher, Monika, John Urry and Katian Witchger (2011a): Introduction: mobilemethods. In: Monika Büscher, John Urry and Katian Witchger (eds.), MobileMethods, 1–19. London/New York: Routledge.

Büscher, Monika, John Urry and Katian Witchger (eds.) (2011b): Mobile Methods. Lon-don: Routledge.

Collinson, Jacquelyn A. (2006): Running-together: some ethnomethodological con-siderations. Ethnographic Studies 8: 17–29.

Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Margret Selting (eds.) (2001): Studies in InteractionalLinguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Cresswell, Tim (2006): On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. New York:Routledge.

D’Andrea, Anthony, Luigina Ciolfi and Breda Gray (2011): Methodological chal-lenges and innovations in mobilities research. Mobilities 6(2): 149–160.



Dant, Tim (2004): The driver-car. Theory, Culture & Society 21(4/5): 61–79.De Stefani, Elwys (2011): “Ah petta ecco, io prendo questi che mi piacciono”. Agire come coppia

al supermercato. Un approccio conversazionale e multimodale allo studio dei processi decisionali.[“Oh wait here I’ll take these ones which I like”. To act as a couple in the super-market. A conversational and multimodal approach to the study of decision pro-cesses]. Roma: Aracne.

De Stefani, Elwys and Lorenza Mondada (2007): L’organizzazione multimodalee interazionale dell’orientamento spaziale in movimento [The multimodal andinteractional organization of spatial orientation in movement]. Bulletin VALSASLA 85: 131–159.

Denis, Michel, Francesca Pazzaglia, Cesare Cornoldi and Laura Bertolo (1999): Spa-tial discourse and navigation: an analysis of route directions in the city of Venice.Applied Cognitive Psychology 13(2): 145–174.

Deppermann, Arnulf, Reinhold Schmitt and Lorenza Mondada (2010): Agenda andemergence: contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics 42:1700–1718.

D’hondt, Sigurd (2009): Calling the stops in a Dar-es-Salaam minibus: embodiedunderstandings of place in a drop-off routine. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1962–1976.

Dourish, Paul (2004): What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal andUbiquitous Computing 8(1): 19–30.

Drew, Paul (2002): Out of context: an intersection between domestic life andthe workplace, as context for (business) talk. Language and Communication 22:477–494.

Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds.) (1992): Rethinking Context: Languageas an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Farnell, Brenda (1994): Ethno-graphics and the moving body. Man 29(4): 929–974.Farnell, Brenda (1999): Moving bodies, acting selves. Annual Review of Anthropology 28:

341–373.Featherstone, Mike (2004): Automobilities: an introduction. Theory, Culture & Society

21(4/5): 1–24.Fele, Giolo (1997): Sociology of action. Ethnomethodological Interpretation of

Soccer. In: Aurelia Marcarino (ed.), Analisi della conversazione e prospettive di ricerca inetnometodologia [Conversation analysis and research perspectives in ethnomethodo-logy], 43–58. Urbino: Quattro Venti.

Fele, Giolo (2008): The collaborative production of responses and dispatching on theradio: video analysis in a medical emergency call center. FQS / Forum: QualitativeSocial Research 9/3, art. 40 (http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1175/2617, accessed September 5, 2011).

Ford, Cecilia A. (2008): Women Speaking Up: Getting and Using Turns in Workplace Meet-ings. New York: Palgrave.

Fornel, Michel de (1991): Gestes, processus de contextualisation et interaction ver-bale [Gesture, contextualisation processes and verbal interaction]. Cahiers de Lin-guistique Française 12: 31–52.

Froholdt, Lisa L. (2010): Getting closer to context: a case study of communicationbetween ship and shore in an emergency situation. Text & Talk 30(4): 385–402.

Francis, David and Stephen Hester (2004): An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language,Society and Interaction. London: Sage.

Garfinkel, Harold ([1967] 1984): Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.



Garfinkel, Harold (2002): Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphor-ism. Edited by Anne W. Rawls. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Garfinkel, Harold (2005): Seeing Sociologically: The Routine Grounds of Social Action. Editedby Anne Rawls. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.

Garfinkel, Harold (2008): Toward a Sociological Theory of Information. Edited by AnneRawls. Boulder, Colorado: Paradigm Publishers.

Garfinkel, Harold and Harvey Sacks (1970): On formal structures of practicalactions. In John C. McKinney and Edward A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical Sociology,337–366. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Gibson, James J. (1979): The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Goffman, Erving (1961): Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapo-lis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Goffman, Erving (1963): Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization ofGatherings. New York: Free Press.

Goffman, Erving (1964): The neglected situation. American Anthropologist 66(6):133–136.

Goffman, Erving (1967): Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behaviour. New York:Pantheon Books.

Goffman, Erving (1981): Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

Goffman, Erving (2010 [1971]): Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. NewBrunswich, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Goodwin, Charles (1979): The interactive construction of a sentence in natural con-versation. In: George Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology,97–121. New York: Irvington Publishers.

Goodwin, Charles (1981): Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers andHearers. New York: Academic Press.

Goodwin, Charles (1993): Recording human interaction in natural settings. Pragmatics3(2): 181–209.

Goodwin, Charles (1995): Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science 25: 237–274.Goodwin, Charles (1996): Transparent vision. In: Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Scheg-

loff and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.) Interaction and Grammar, 370–404. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, Charles (2000): Action and embodiment within situated human interac-tion. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10): 1489–1522.

Goodwin, Charles (2003a): The body in action. In: Justine Coupland and RichardGwyn (eds.), Discourse, the Body and Identity, 19–42. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Goodwin, Charles (2003b): Pointing as situated practice. In: Sotaro Kita (ed.), Point-ing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, 217–241. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Goodwin, Charles (2004): A competent speaker who can’t speak: the social life ofaphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 14(2): 151–170.

Goodwin, Charles (2007a): Participation, stance and affect in the organization ofactivities. Discourse & Society 18(1): 53–73.

Goodwin, Charles (2007b): Environmentally coupled gestures. In: Susan D. Duncan,Justine Cassell and Elena T. Levy (eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Lan-guage, 195–212. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.



Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie H. Goodwin (1996): Seeing as a situated activity: for-mulating planes. In: David Middleton and Yrjö Engeström (eds.), Cognition andCommunication at Work, 61–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, Charles and Marjorie H. Goodwin (2004): Participation. In: AlessandroDuranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, 222–244. Maldan, MA: Black-well.

Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1980): Processes of mutual monitoring implicated for theproduction of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4): 303–317.

Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1995a): Assembling a response: setting and collaborativelyconstructed work talk. In: Paul ten Have and George Psathas (eds.), Situated Order :Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, 173–186. Washington,DC: University Press of America.

Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1995b): Co-construction in girls’ hopscotch. Research on Lan-guage and Social Interaction 28(3): 261–282.

Goodwin, Marjorie H. and Charles Goodwin (1986): Gesture and coparticipation inthe activity of searching a word. Semiotica 62(1/2): 51–75.

Haddington, Pentti (2006): The organization of gaze and assessments as resourcesfor stance taking. Text & Talk 26(3): 281–328.

Haddington, Pentti (2010): Turn-taking for turntaking: mobility, time, and action inthe sequential organization of junction negotiations in cars. Research on Languageand Social Interaction 43(4): 372–400.

Haddington, Pentti (in press): Movement in action: initiating social navigation in cars.Semiotica.

Haddington, Pentti and Tiina Keisanen (2009): Location, mobility and the body asresources in selecting a route. Journal of Pragmatics 41(10): 1938–1961.

Haddington, Pentti, Tiina Keisanen and Maurice Nevile (eds.) (in press): Meaning inMotion: Interaction in Cars. Special issue for Semiotica.

Haddington, Pentti and Mirka Rauniomaa (2011): Technologies, multitasking, anddriving: attending to and preparing for a mobile phone conversation in a car.Human Communication Research 37: 223–254.

Hakulinen, Auli and Margret Selting (eds.) (2005): Syntax and Lexis in Conversation.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hanks, William F. (1990): Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space Among the Maya.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hannam, Kevin, Mimi Sheller and John Urry (2006): Editorial: mobilities, immobil-ities and moorings. Mobilities 1(1): 1–22.

Hausendorf, Heiko (in press): Über Tische und Bänke – Eine Fallstudie zur inter-aktiven Aneignung mobiliarer Benutzbarkeitshinweise [On tables and benches. Acase study on the interactive arrangement of furniture usability advices]. In: HeikoHausendorf, Lorenza Mondada and Reinhold Schmitt (eds.). Raum als interaktiveRessource [Space as an interactive resource]. Tübingen: Narr.

Hayashi, Makoto (2003): Joint Utterance Construction in Japanese Conversation. Amster-dam: Benjamins.

Hayashi, Makoto (2005): Joint turn construction through language and the body:notes on embodiment in coordinated participation in situated activities. Semiotica156(1/4): 21–53.

Haviland, John B. (1993): Anchoring, iconicity, and orientation in Guugu Yimithirrpointing gestures. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 3(1): 3–45.



Heath, Christian (1986): Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Heath, Christian (1989): Pain talk: the expression of suffering in the medical consul-tation. Social Psychology Quarterly 52(2): 113–125.

Heath, Christian, Jon Hindmarsh and Paul Luff (1999): Interaction in isolation: thedislocated world of the London underground train driver. Sociology 33(3): 555–575.

Heath, Christian, Jon Hindmarsh and Paul Luff (2010): Video in Qualitative Research.London: Sage.

Heath, Christian and Paul Luff (1992): Collaboration and control: crisis managementand multimedia technology in London Underground line control rooms. ComputerSupported Cooperative Work 1(1): 24–48.

Heath, Christian and Paul Luff (1996): Convergent activities: line control and pas-senger information on the London Underground. In: Yrjö Engeström and DavidMiddleton (eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work, 96–129. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Heath, Christian and Paul Luff (2000): Technology in Action. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Heath, Christian, Paul Luff and Marcus Sanchez Svensson (2002): Overseeingorganisation. British Journal of Sociology of Health and Illness 53(2): 181–203.

Heath, Christian, Paul Luff and Abigail J. Sellen (1997): Reconfiguring media space:supporting collaborative work. In: Kathleen E. Finn, Abigail J. Sellen and Sylvia B.Wilbur (eds.), Video-Mediated Communication, 323–347. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum.

Heath, Christian, Marcus Sanchez Svensson, Jon Hindmarsh, Paul Luff and Dirkvom Lehn (2002): Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 11:317–347.

Heritage, John (1984): Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Heritage, John (1997): Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analyzing data.

In: David Silverman (ed.), Qualitative Analysis: Issues of Theory and Method, 161–182.London: Sage.

Hester, Stephen and David Francis (2003): Analysing visually available mundaneorder: a walk to the supermarket. Visual Studies 18(1): 36–46.

Hindmarsh, Jon and Christian Heath (2000): Embodied reference: a study of deixis inworkplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1855–1878.

Hindmarsh, Jon, Christian Heath, Dirk vom Lehn and Jason Cleverly (2005): Creat-ing assemblies in public environments: social interaction, interactive exhibits andCSCW. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 14(1): 1–41.

Hirschauer, Stefan (2005): On doing being a stranger: the practical constitution ofcivil inattention. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 35: 41–67.

Hickmann, Maya and Stéphane Robert (2006): Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems andCognitive Categories. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Hutchby, Ian (2001): Conversation and Technology. Cambridge: Polity.Hutchby, Ian and Simone Barnett (2005): Aspects of the sequential organization of

mobile phone conversation. Discourse Studies 7(2): 147–171.Hutchby, Ian and Wooffitt, Robin (2008): Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity

Press.Ingold, Tim (2004): Culture on the ground – the world perceived through the feet.

Journal of Material Culture 9: 315–340.



Jefferson, Gail (2004): Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: GeneLerner (ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, 13–31. Amster-dam: Benjamins.

Jensen, Ole B. (2010a): Erving Goffman and everyday life mobility. In: Michael Ja-cobsen and Michael Hviid (eds.), The Contemporary Goffman, 333–351. Abingdon:Routledge.

Jensen, Ole B. (2010b): Negotiation in motion: unpacking a geography of mobility.Space and Culture 13(4): 389–402.

Juhlin, Oskar and Alexandra Weilenmann (2001): Decentralizing the control room:mobile work and institutional order. In: Wolfgang Prinz, Matthias Jarke, YvonneRogers, Kjeld Schmidt and Volke Wulf (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh European Con-ference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, 16–20 September 2001, 379–397. Bonn,Germany.

Kääntä, Leila (2010): Teacher Turn-Allocation and Repair Practices in Classroom Interaction.Jyväskylä: The University of Jyväskylä.

Keating, Elizabeth (2008): Space shifting: new technologies, new opportunities. TexasLinguistic Forum 52: 70–79.

Keating, Elizabeth, Terra Edwards and Gene Mirus (2008): Cybersign and new pro-ximities: impacts of new communication technologies on space and language.Journal of Pragmatics 40: 1067–1081.

Keating, Elizabeth and Chiho Sunakawa (2010): Participation cues: coordinating activityand collaboration in complex online gaming worlds. Language in Society 39: 331–356.

Keating, Elizabeth and Chiho Sunakawa (2011): “A full inspiration tray”: multimoda-lity across real and computer-mediated spaces. In: Jürgen Streeck, Charles Good-win and Curtis LeBaron (eds.). Embodied Interaction, 194–206. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Keisanen, Tiina (in press): “Uh-oh, We Were Going There”: Environmentally Occa-sioned Noticings of Trouble in In-car Interaction. Semiotica.

Kendon, Adam (1977): Spatial organization in social encounters: the F-formationsystem. In: Adam Kendon (ed.), Studies in the Behavior of Social Interaction. Lisse, Hol-land: Peter DeRidder Press.

Kendon, Adam (1990): Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Klein, Wolfgang (1979): Wegauskünfte [Itinerary descriptions]. Zeitschrift für Literatur-wissenschaft und Linguistik 9(33): 9–57.

Knoblauch, Hubert, Bernt Schnettler, Jürgen Raab and Hans-Georg Söffner (2006):Video-Analysis: Methodology and Methods. Frankfurt: Lang.

Knoblauch, Hubert, Alejandro Baer, Eric Laurier, Sabine Petschke and BerntSchnettler (eds.) (2008): Visual methods. Special issue for Forum: Qualitative SocialResearch 9(3). (available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/issue/view/11/showToc, accessed September 6, 2011).

Koschmann, Timothy (ed.) (2011): Understanding Understanding in Action. Special issuefor Journal of Pragmatics 43(2).

Koschmann, Timothy and Curtis D. LeBaron (2003): Reconsidering commonground: examining Clark’s contribution theory in the OR. In: Kari Kuutti, EijaHelena Karsten, Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Paul Dourish and Kjeld Schmidt (eds.),Proceedings of the Eight European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work(Helsinki, 14–18 Sept 2003), 516–521. Amsterdam: Kluwer.



Koschmann, Timothy, Curtis LeBaron, Charles Goodwin and Paul Feltovich (2006):The mystery of the missing referent: objects, procedures, and the problem of theinstruction follower. Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on ComputerSupported Cooperative Work, 373–382. Banff, Alberta, Canada.

Koschmann, Timothy, Gerry Stahl and Alan Zemel (2007): The video analyst’s mani-festo (or the implications of Garfinkel’s policies for studying practice withindesign-based research). In: Ricki Goldman, Roy Pea, Brigid Barron and Sharon D.Derry (eds.), Video Research in the Learning Sciences, 133–143. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

Landgren, Jonas (2005): Supporting fire crew sensemaking enroute to incidents. Inter-national Journal of Emergency Management 2(3): 176–188.

Laurier, Eric (2001): Why people say where they are during mobile phone calls.Environment and Planning D: Society & Space 19(4): 485–504.

Laurier, Eric (2002): Notes on dividing the attention of a car driver. Team EthnoOnline 1 (http://www.teamethno-online.org.uk/Issue1/Laurier/gooddriv.html,accessed September 6, 2011).

Laurier, Eric (2004): Doing office work on the motorway. Theory, Culture & Society21(4/5): 261–277.

Laurier, Eric (2005): Searching for a parking space. Intellectica 2–3, 41–42: 101–115.Laurier, Eric, Hayden Lorimer, Barry Brown, Owain Jones, Oskar Juhlin, Allyson

Noble, Mark Perry, Daniele Pica, Philippe Sormani, Ignaz Strebel, Laurel Swan,Alex S. Taylor, Laura Watts and Alexandra Weilenmann (2008): Driving and“passengering”: notes on the ordinary organization of car travel. Mobilities 3(1):1–31.

Laurier, Eric and Barry Brown (2011): The reservations of the editor: the routinework of showing and knowing the film in the edit suite. Social Semiotics 21(2):239–257.

LeBaron, Curtis D. and Jürgen Streeck (1997): Built space and the interactional fram-ing of experience during a murder interrogation. Human Studies 20: 1–25.

Lee, John R. E. and Rod D. Watson (1993): Regards et attitudes des passants. Lesarrangements de visibilité de la locomotion [Gaze and attitudes of pedestrians. Thevisible arrangements in movement]. Annales de la recherche urbaine 57–58: 101–109.

Lenz, Friedrich (ed.) (2003): Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person. Amster-dam: Benjamins.

Lerner, Gene H. (2003): Selecting next speaker: the context-sensitive operation of acontext-free organization. Language in Society 32: 177–201.

Levinson, Stephen A. (2003): Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Licoppe, Christian and Yoriko Inada (2009): The Mogi location-aware communityand its interaction order: “augmented” face-to-face encounters as rare, public per-formances. In: Proceedings of MobileHCI09, Bonn: ATM.

Lindström, Anna and Lorenza Mondada (eds.) (2009): Assessments in Social Interaction.Special issue for Research on Language and Social Interaction 42(4).

Lomax, Helen and Neil Casey (1998): Recording social life: reflexivity and videomethodology. Sociological Research Online 3(2) (http://www.socresonline.org.uk/3/2/1.html, accessed September 6, 2011).

Luff, Paul and Christian Heath (1993): System use and social organisation: obser-vations on human-computer interaction in an architectural practice. In: Graham



Button (ed.), Technology in Working Order : Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology,184–210. London: Routledge.

Luff, Paul and Christian Heath (1998): Mobility in collaboration. In: Steven Poltrockand Jonathan Grudin (eds.), Proceedings of the 1998 ACM Conference on Computer Sup-ported Cooperative Work, 305–314: ACM Press.

Luff, Paul and Christian Heath (1999): Surveying the scene: the monitoring practicesof staff in control rooms. In: Janet Noyes and Matthew Bransby (eds.), Proceedingsof People in Control: An International Conference on Human Interfaces in Control Rooms,Cockpits and Command Centres, 1–6. Bath: University of Bath, IEE Press.

Luff, Paul and Christian Heath (2002): Broadcast talk: initiating calls through a com-puter-mediated technology. Research on Language and Social Interaction 35(3): 337–366.

Lynch, Michael (1991): Laboratory space and the technological complex: an investi-gation on topical contextures. Science in Context 4: 51–78.

Mark, David M. and Michael D. Gould (1995): Wayfinding directions as discourse:verbal directions in English and Spanish. In: Judith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruderand Lynne E. Hewitt (eds.), Deixis in narrative: A cognitive science perspective, 387–405.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Markaki, Vassiliki and Lorenza Mondada (in press): Embodied orientations towardsco-participants in multinational meetings. Discourse Studies.

McIlvenny, Paul (2009): Communicating a ‘Time-out’ in Parent-Child Conflict:Embodied Interaction, Domestic Space and Discipline in a Reality TV ParentingProgramme. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2017–2032.

McIlvenny, Paul, Mathias Broth and Pentti Haddington (2009): Communicatingplace, space and mobility. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1879–1886.

McNeill, David (1981): Action, thought, and language. Cognition 10: 201–208.Melander, Helen and Fritjof Sahlström (2009): Learning to fly – the progressive

development of situation awareness. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research53(2): 151–166.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1962): Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Mondada, Lorenza (2003): Working with video: how surgeons produce video records

of their actions. Visual Studies 18(1): 58–73.Mondada, Lorenza (2005): La constitution de l’origo déictique comme travail inter-

actionnel des participants: une approche praxéologique de la spatialité [The con-stitution of deictic origo as an interactional achievement of participants: a praxeo-logical approach of spatiality]. Intellectica 2/3, 41–42: 75–100.

Mondada, Lorenza (2006): Video recording as the reflexive preservation and con-figuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In: Hubert Knoblauch, JürgenRaab, Hans-Georg Söffner and Bernt Schnettler (eds.), Video Analysis: Methodologyand Methods, 52–67. Bern: Lang.

Mondada, Lorenza (2007a): Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and theemergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9(2): 195–226.

Mondada, Lorenza (2007b): Operating together through videoconference: members’procedures accomplishing a common space of action. In: Stephen Hester andDavid Francis (eds.), Orders of Ordinary Action, 51–68. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Mondada, Lorenza (2008): Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis ofsocial interaction: videotaping institutional telephone calls. FQS: Forum: QualitativeSocial Research 9(3) (available at http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/1161, accessed September 6, 2011).



Mondada, Lorenza (2009a): Emergent focused interactions in public places: a sys-tematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space.Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1977–1997.

Mondada, Lorenza (2009b): Video recording practices and the reflexive constitu-tion of the interactional order: some systematic uses of the split-screen technique.Human Studies 32: 67–99.

Mondada, Lorenza (2011): Reassembling fragmented geographies. In: MonikaBüscher, John Urry and Katian Witchger (eds.). Mobile Methods, 138–163. London:Routledge.

Mondada, Lorenza (in press a): Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. In: Peter Auer, Martin Hilpert, Anja Stukenbrock and BenediktSzmrecsanyi (eds.), Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional andCognitive Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Mondada, Lorenza (in press b): Géographies mobiles et divergentes: l’établissementinteractionnel des lieux d’intervention dans des appels au secours [Mobile anddivergent geographies: the interactive establishment of dispatch places in emerg-ency calls]. Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances 5(2).

Mondada, Lorenza (in press c): Coordinating action and talk-in-interaction in andout of video games. In: Ruth Ayass and Cornelia Gerhardt (eds.), The Appro-priation of Media in Everyday Life. What People Do with Media. Amsterdam: Benja-mins.

Mondada, Lorenza (in press d): Garden lessons: embodied action and joint attentionin extended sequences. In: Hisashi Nasu and Frances C. Waksler (eds.), Festschriftfor George Psathas.

Mondada, Lorenza (in press e): Mobile conversations: talking and driving in the car.Semiotica.

Mondada, Lorenza and Reinhold Schmitt (eds.) (2010): Situationseröffnungen: Zur multi-modalen Herstellung fokussierter Interaktion [Openings: on the multimodal constitu-tion of focused interaction]. Tübingen: Narr.

Morel, Julien and Christian Licoppe (2011): Studying mobile video telephony. In:Monika Büscher, John Urry and Katian Witchger (eds.), Mobile Methods, 164–182.London: Routledge.

Mortensen, Kristian (2009): Establishing recipiency in pre-beginning position in thesecond language classroom. Discourse Processes 46: 491–515.

Nevile, Maurice (2004a): Beyond the Black Box: Talk-in-interaction in the Airline Cockpit.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Nevile, Maurice (2004b): Integrity in the airline cockpit: embodying claims aboutprogress for the conduct of an approach briefing. Research on Language and SocialInteraction 37(4): 447–480.

Nevile, Maurice (2005): You always have to land: accomplishing the sequential organ-ization of actions to land an airliner. In: Sigrid Norris and Rodney Jones (eds.),Discourse in Action: Introducing Mediated Discourse Analysis, 32–44. London/NewYork: Routledge.

Nevile, Maurice (2007): Action in time: ensuring timeliness for collaborative work inthe airline cockpit. Language in Society 36(2): 233–257.

Nevile, Maurice (2009): “You are well clear of friendlies”: diagnostic error and coop-erative work in an Iraq War friendly fire incident. Computer Supported CooperativeWork 18: 147–173.



Nevile, Maurice (2010): Looking for action: talk and gaze home position in the airlinecockpit. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 33(1): 1–21.

Nevile, Maurice (in press): Interaction as distraction in driving: a body of evidence.Semiotica.

Nevile, Maurice and Pentti Haddington (2010): In-car Distractions and their Impact onDriving Activities. Canberra: Commonwealth Department Transport and Infra-structure. RSGR 2010-001. (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2010/pdf/rsgr_2010001.pdf, accessed 10 September 2011)

Nishizaka, Aug (2000): Seeing what one sees: perception, emotion, and activity. Mind,Culture, and Activity 7(1&2): 105–123.

Paterson, Matthew (2007): Automobile Politics: Ecology and Cultural Political Economy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Psathas, George (1976): Mobility, orientation and navigation: conceptual and theor-etical considerations. New Outlook for the Blind 70(9): 385–391.

Psathas, George (1979): Organizational features of direction maps. In: George Psathas(ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, 203–225. Irvington: New York.

Psathas, George (1986): The organization of directions in interaction. Word 37(1–2):83–91.

Psathas, George (1991): The structure of direction-giving in interaction. In: DeirdreBoden and Don H. Zimmerman (eds.), Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnome-thodology and Conversation Analysis, 195–216. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Psathas, George (1992): The study of extended sequences: the case of the garden les-son. In: Graham Watson and Robert M. Seiler (eds.), Text in Context: Contributions toEthnomethodology, 99–122. Newbury Park: Sage.

Relieu, Marc (1994): Les catégories dans l’action. L’apprentissage des traversées derue par des non-voyants [Categories in action. Blind persons learning to cross thestreet]. Raisons Pratiques. L’enquête sur les categories 5: 185–218.

Relieu, Marc (1999): Parler en marchant: Pour une écologie dynamique deséchanges de paroles [Talking while walking: towards a dynamic ecology of verbalexchanges]. Langage & Société 89: 37–67.

Relieu, Marc (2002): Ouvrir la boîte noire. Identification et localisation dans les con-versations mobiles [Opening up the black box. Identification and localizationin mobile conversations]. Réseaux 20(112–113) (http://www.cairn.info/revue-re-seaux-2002-2-page-20.htm, accessed September 6, 2011).

Relieu, Marc (2006): Remarques sur l’analyse conversationnelle et les technologiesmédiatisées [Comments on conversation analysis and mediated technologies].Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée XI(2): 17–32.

Relieu Marc and Julien Morel (2004): L’hybridation contrôlée des usages du mobileen public: une approche située [The controlled hybridation of uses of mobilephones in public: a situated approach]. In: Daniel Kaplan and Hubert Lafont(eds.), Mobilités.net – Villes, Transports, Technologies face aux nouvelles mobilités [Mobil-ities.net – Cities, Transportation, and Technologies confronting the new mobil-ities]. Paris: FING-RATP.

Ryave, A. Lincoln and James N. Schenkein (1974): Notes on the art of walking. In:Roy Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology, 265–274. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Sacks, Harvey (1972): An initial investigation of the usability of conversationalmaterials for doing sociology. In: David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction,31–74. New York: Free Press.



Sacks, Harvey (1984): Notes on methodology. In: John M. Atkinson and John Heri-tage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, 21–27. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sacks, Harvey (1987 [1973]): On the preferences for agreement and contiguity insequences in conversation. In: Graham Button and John R. E. Lee (eds.), Talk andSocial Organization, 54–69. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Sacks, Harvey (1992): Lectures on Conversation [1964–1972]. Cambridge: Blackwell.Sacks, Harvey and Emanuel A. Schegloff (2002): Home position. Gesture, 2(2):

133–146.Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson (1974): A simplest system-

atics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.Sanders, Robert E. (2003): Conversational socializing on marine VHF radio: adapt-

ing laughter and other practices to the technology in use. In Philip Glenn, CurtisLeBaron and Jenny Mandelbaum (eds.), Studies in Language and Social Interaction: InHonor of Robert Hopper, 309–326. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Scheflen, Albert E. (1964): The significance of posture in communication systems.Psychiatry 27: 316–331.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1972): Notes on conversational practice: formulating place.In: David N. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, 75–119: New York: FreePress.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1984): On some gestures’ relation to talk. In: John M. Atkin-son and John Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, 266–296. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1992): In another context. In: Alessandro Duranti andCharles Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon,191–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996a): Confirming allusions: an empirical account of action,American Journal of Sociology 102(1): 161–216.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1996b): Issues of relevance for discourse analysis: contin-gency in action, interaction and co-participant context. In: Eduard H. Hovy andDonia R. Scott (eds.), Computational and Conversational Discourse: Burning Issues – AnInterdisciplinary Account, 3–38. Heidelberg: Springer.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1998): Body torque. Social Research, 65(3): 535–586.Schegloff, Emanuel. A. (2002): Beginnings in the telephone. In: James E. Katz and

Mark A. Aakhus (eds.), Perpetual Contact: Mobile Communication, Private Talk, PublicPerformance, 284–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2006): Interaction: the infrastructure for social institutions,the natural ecological niche for language, and the arena in which culture isenacted. In: Nick J. Enfield and Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Roots of Human Social-ity: Culture, Cognition and Interaction, 70–96. London: Berg.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007): Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conver-sation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. and Harvey Sacks (1973): Opening up closings. Semiotica 7(4):289–327.

Schmitt, Reinhold (2005): Zur multimodalen Struktur von turn-taking [On themultimodal structure of turn-taking]. Gesprächsforschung – Onlinezeitschrift zur ver-balen Interaktion 6: 17–61 (http://www.gespraechsforschung-ozs.de/heft2005/ga-schmitt.pdf, accessed September 5, 2011).



Schmitt, Reinhold (ed.) (2007): Koordination. Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion[Coordination. Analysis of multimodal interaction]. Tübingen: Narr

Schmitt, Reinhold (in press): Körperlich-räumliche Grundlagen interaktiver Beteili-gung [Embodied and spatial foundations of interactional participation]. In: HeikoHausendorf, Lorenza Mondada and Reinhold Schmitt (eds.), Raum als interaktiveRessource. Tübingen: Narr.

Seamon, David (1980): Body-subject, time-space routines, and place-ballets. In:Anne Buttimer and David Seamon (eds.), The Human Experience of Space and Place,148–165. London: Croon Helm.

Sheller, Mimi and John Urry (2006): The new mobilities paradigm. Environment andPlanning A 38(2): 207–226.

Spinney, Justine (2011): A chance to catch a breath: using mobile video ethnographyin cycling research. Mobilities 6(2): 161–182.

Stivers, Tanya (2008): Stance, alignment and affiliation during storytelling: when nod-ding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1): 31–57.

Streeck, Jürgen (1993): Gesture as communication I: its coordination with gaze andspeech. Communication Monographs 60: 275–299.

Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin and Curtis LeBaron (eds.) (2011): Embodied Inter-action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Streeck, Jürgen and Ulrike Hartge (1992): Previews: gestures at the transition place.In: Peter Auer and Aldo di Luzio (eds.), The Contextualization of Language, 135–157.Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Suchman, Lucy (1987): Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-machine Com-munication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, Lucy (1996): Constituting shared workspaces. In: Yrjö Engeström andDavid Middleton (eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work, 35–60. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Suchman, Lucy (1997): Centers of coordination: a case and some themes. In: LaurenB. Resnick, Roger Säljö, Clotilde Pontecorvo and Barbara Burge (eds.), Discourse,Tools, and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition, 41–62. Berlin: Springer.

Sudnow, David N. (1972): Temporal parameters of interpersonal observation. In:David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, 259–279. New York: Free Press.

Szymanski, Margaret (1999): Re-engaging and dis-engaging talk in activity. Language inSociety 28: 1–23.

Szymanski, Margaret, Erik Vinkhuyzen, Paul M. Aoki and Allison Woodruff (2006):Organizing a remote state of incipient talk: push-to-talk mobile radio interaction.Language in Society 35: 393–418.

Taylor, Holly A. and Barbara Tversky (1992): Spatial mental models derived from sur-vey and route descriptions. Journal of Memory and Language 31(2): 261–292.

ten Have, Paul (2007): Doing Conversation Analysis: A Practical Guide. 2nd edition. Lon-don: Sage.

Thrift, Nigel (2007): Non-representational Theory: Space, Politics, Affect. London: Routledge.Urry, John (2007): Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity.Watson, Rod (1999): Driving in forests and mountains: a pure and applied eth-

nography. Ethnographic Studies 4: 50–60.Watson, Rod (2005): The visibility arrangements of public space: conceptual

resources and methodological issues in analysing pedestrian movements. Com-munication & Cognition 38 (1–2): 201–227.



Whalen, Jack (1995): A technology of order production: computer-aided dispatchin public safety communications. In: Paul ten Have and George Psathas (eds.),Situated Order : Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities,187–230. Washington DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology andConversation Analysis and University Press of America.

Whalen, Marilyn and Don H. Zimmerman (1987): Sequential and institutional con-texts in calls for help. Social Psychology Quarterly 50: 172–185.

Wunderlich, Dieter (1976): Wegauskunft an einen Ausländer [Asking directions to aforeigner]. In: Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.

Zimmerman, Don (1992): The interactional organization of calls for emergencyassistance. In: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work: Social Interaction inInstitutional Settings, 418–469. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zouinar, Moustapha, Marc Relieu, Pascal Salembier and Guillaume Calvet (2004):Observation et capture de données sur l’interaction multimodale en mobilité[Observation and data capture of multimodal mobile interaction]. Mobilité & Ubi-quité ’04, 1–3 June 2004, Nice, ACM.

being mobile: interaction on the move

Documents