nodding and note-taking multimodal analysis of writing and nodding in student counseling interaction
TRANSCRIPT
Language and Dialogue 6:1 (2016), 81–109. doi 10.1075/ld.6.1.03sviissn 2210–4119 / e-issn 2210–4127 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
Nodding and note-takingMultimodal analysis of writing and nodding in student counseling interaction
Kimmo SvinhufvudUniversity of Helsinki
The paper studies the activity of note-taking in interactions between a university student counselor and an undergraduate student. The study is based on authen-tic videotaped discussions recorded in a Finnish university. The study concen-trates on sequences consisting of a question, an answer, and the taking of notes. The aim of the paper is to present a detailed multimodal analysis on how the note-taker moves from not writing to writing and how nodding is used in both receiving the answer and indicating the transition from listening to taking down notes. Listening and note-taking are seen as a dual involvement depending par-tially on the same embodied resources, especially the gaze and bodily orienta-tion. The shift from listening to note-taking often is indicated with a pronounced writing initial nod.
Keywords: writing, note-taking, nodding, counseling, institutional interaction, multiactivity, conversation analysis, multimodal analysis
‘It is our understanding that you know one Evans White, Mr. Robertson. What can you tell us?’ Harry said, taking out his notebook. He wasn’t intend-ing to jot anything down, but it was his experience that people felt their state-ment was more important if you pulled out a notebook. Unconsciously, they were more thorough, took the time to check that everything was correct and they were more precise with facts such as times, names and places.
– Jo Nesbø: The Bat (translated by Don Bartlett)
1. Introduction
This paper concentrates on the activity of note-taking in discussions between a university student counselor and an undergraduate student. Special attention is given to sequences involving a question, an answer, and the taking of handwritten notes. The paper analyzes how the note-taker moves from not writing to writing
82 Kimmo Svinhufvud
during the reception of the answer. It also is shown how nodding is closely related to writing in this context.
Note-taking involves “recording information collected from one or several sources” (Piolat, Olive, and Kellogg 2005, 291). In studies on interaction, this source is usually the speech of one or more participants, and the notes typically are written by hand using a pencil on a notepad or a sheet of paper. Conversation analytic (CA) research on note-taking is relatively scarce, but some studies do ex-ist. Hazel and Mortensen (2014) have studied the taking of notes in a very similar setting to the current data, the openings of student counseling sessions. They point out how the pencil and the notepad are manipulated to mark the beginning of the counseling activity and how the content of the notes may be less important than the interactional display of taking notes.
Note-taking also has been studied in various group settings. For example, Mortensen (2013) studied note-taking in a business setting where the taking of notes is used in a collaborative design activity. In that setting, note-taking is in the service of a design activity. The notes are written by all the participants and all notes are visible to other participants. On the other hand, De Stefani, Sambre, and Van De Mieroop (2016, this issue) have been looking at discussions in a peer sup-port group where note-taking is a part of the activity of producing a collaborative memo and summary of the discussions.
Compared to these last two studies, it is noteworthy that in my data on stu-dent counseling, note-taking is an activity performed almost exclusively by one participant, the counselor. Also, the notes in this setting are private, for the use of the counselor, and not intended to be read by someone else or to be public in any way. The notes taken cannot be fully seen by the student but the activity of note-taking is, to a certain extent, public for him or her to observe. The participants therefore are very asymmetrically positioned toward the writing activity and the notes produced.
This asymmetrical nature or partial opaqueness (Goodwin 2000, 1508; see also Komter 2006, 211, 220; Van Charldorp 2011, 65) of writing (the activity can be observed but the end product is not visible to other participants) also is present in other contexts for writing such as police interrogations (Komter 2006, 2012) and performance appraisal interviews (Pälli and Lehtinen 2014). These settings have other similarities with the current data: The discussions typically proceed in sequences of question, answer, and writing, and it is the expert participant who performs the writing.1
1. Although it is possible that the suspect is asked afterwards to sign the document and may even suggest corrections to it (Van Charldorp 2013).
Nodding and note-taking 83
There are some notable differences, as well, especially in terms of how the end product is treated. As Komter (2006, 2012) notes, in police interrogations one of the key aims is to produce a document (the suspect’s statement) that then is used publicly by other people (the judge) at a later occasion (the trial). In performance appraisal interviews (Pälli and Lehtinen 2014), on the other hand, the produced document (the appraisal form) is confidential but it nevertheless will be filed and possibly used in the succeeding interviews by the participants. In student counsel-ing, the counselor occasionally may read aloud something in the notes or make a reference to their content. However, the notes produced ultimately will be for the private use of the counselor.
This article shows that in the context of student counseling note-taking is closely related to nodding. Nodding seems like a simple gesture. Kettner and Carpendale (2013) point out, however, that nodding develops relatively late with children even though they have the motor skills required to produce nods and nodding is the only gesture missing from congenitally blind children. Traditionally (e.g., Darwin 2009 [1890]; Spitz 1957), the origin of gestures of shaking the head for indicating negation and nodding the head for indicating affirmation has been traced to nurs-ing (turning the head away or toward the breast). Modern research, however, does not seem to support this hypothesis. According to Kettner and Carpendale (2013), nodding develops relatively late with infants because it is responsive to a previous utterance and is learned through participating in conversation and turn-taking.
In CA studies on interaction, recipient head nods typically are described as a confirmation (e.g., Stivers 2010, 2773), acknowledgement (e.g., Kaukomaa, Peräkylä, and Ruusuvuori 2015, 327), or continuer (e.g., Mondada 2011b, 544). Although nodding is, of course, a very common feature in interaction, systematic conversation analytic expositions of nodding are relatively rare. The most relevant studies with respect to this paper are Stivers’ study (2008) on nodding in storytell-ing sequences in everyday interaction and Muntigl, Knight, and Watkins’ study (2012) on therapist nods in psychotherapy (see also Oshima 2014 for mutual nod-ding in the hair salon and Aoki 2011 for speaker nods).
During storytelling (Stivers 2008), recipient nods in mid-telling position align with the activity of storytelling but also are used to display affiliation. They do this by claiming access to both the events of the story and to the teller’s stance toward the events. Muntigl, Knight, and Watkins (2012), on the other hand, show how in psychotherapy, therapists use nodding also to secure affiliation in contexts where the client is not aligning with the therapist’s previous reformulation.
In the current data, student answers to counselor questions cannot be classi-fied as tellings because they are prompted by a question. However, in the context of interviewing the student and taking the case-history, student answers often are told in narratives and the functions of counselor nodding during these answers
84 Kimmo Svinhufvud
seem to be similar to the mid-telling nods described by Stivers (2008). In this paper I am building on Stivers’ (2008) observations but also extending the line of research on nodding. I am presenting a multimodal analysis on nodding that highlights the differences between different kinds of nods. And in line with the theme of this special issue, I specifically aim to observe nodding in relation to talking and writing.
In this paper, I will concentrate on nodding and note-taking in sequences where the counselor asks a question, the student answers the question, and the counselor then starts taking notes. Note-taking occurs in many other contexts as well. However, concentrating on the question-answer-note-taking sequence made it possible to collect a relatively large number of similar instances.
Questioning is a very typical activity in various institutional settings (see for example Freed and Ehrlich 2010). Question sequences also are a typical context for writing. For example, in police interrogations (Komter 2006, 2012; Van Charldorp 2011, 2013), questioning is a central activity that is followed by the police offi-cer typing the statement, whereas in performance appraisal interviews (Pälli and Lehtinen 2014) questions by the superior are regularly followed by writing by both the participants.
Questions are, of course, a very complex topic in itself. Questioning turns in my data often consist of embedded questions or question chains that formulate the question from different angles. In this paper the aim is not to present a full analysis of questions and questioning in student counseling. Rather, questions were chosen to be a context for the study of writing because they make it possible to collect many similar extracts. To further facilitate this, I decided to concentrate on the initial sessions in the counseling process and on the history-taking and interviews of the student. The interview phase takes the majority of the initial sessions and in-cludes questions that consist of or include an interrogative (as opposed to declara-tive questions). In this context it is observable that the counselor does not know the answer to his or her question. In the later stages of the initial sessions and in the subsequent sessions, interrogatives increasingly are used in the service of di-rectives or various therapeutic activities such as challenging student propositions.
Although this paper concentrates on sequences including a question, note-taking as an activity is in effect more closely tied to responding or answering the question and, subsequently, responding to these answers. In their studies on police interrogations, Komter (2006) and Van Charldorp (2011) describe a typical se-quence of question, answer, and typing (QAT). Although the sequential progres-sion of the interactions in their data doesn’t always fully adhere to this sequence, alternative sequential progressions are treated as overlap (Komter 2006, 207–209) or deviation (Van Charldorp 2011, 68). This paper takes a multimodal approach to writing and from this point of view it is quite clear that multimodal sequences
Nodding and note-taking 85
involving both verbal and embodied actions do not fully conform to such fixed se-quential patterns. Thus, it is demonstrated in the following sections how note-tak-ing sometimes begins after the answer but quite often is performed simultaneously with the answer. Overall, talk, writing, nodding, and other embodied resources together constitute the activity of note-taking that is central in student counseling.
2. Data and methodology
Student counseling is a voluntary form of support for undergraduate students of-fered by the universities in Finland. According to the student counselors’ website, the students come to counseling to discuss “issues concerning students’ academic skills, motivation, time management, and well-being.” (Student counselors’ web-site 2015) Although student counseling is quite a common form of guidance at least in the European context, there is some variety in what is called student coun-seling. For example, in the study by Hazel and Mortensen (2014) on student coun-seling in the Danish context, the counselor is another student, and the participants mainly tackle very practical issues related to studying. The current research steers more toward the therapy end of the scale: All the counselors are licensed psycholo-gists who have some kind of a therapy training. Also, rather than concentrating mainly on practical issues, the issues discussed in the counseling often are related to motivation and self-efficacy, and several of the students in the data have a diag-nosed psychiatric disorder (e.g., depression) that is being treated somewhere else at the same time.
All in all, the data consist of thirty-four individual counseling sessions, each lasting approximately one hour. There are three different counselors in the data and all in all nine different students, with each student visiting the counselor be-tween one and eight times. In this paper, the analysis concentrates on the initial sessions (n = 7) in the counseling process and on the history-taking and interview-ing part that takes the majority of these sessions.2
The data were videotaped with two video cameras mounted to the walls. The counselors did the recordings and collected the research permits from the student. Some details in the data have been changed to preserve anonymity of the students.
Figure 1 shows a photograph of a typical setting. The counselor and the stu-dent are sitting on adjacent sides of the same table. Sometimes the counselor is seated facing the student, as in the photo; at other times the two are sitting slightly
2. Altogether, there were nine students in the data. One of the students didn’t want the first en-counter to be recorded. Another had had his initial session a year before the data were recorded. Thus, there are seven initial encounters in the data.
86 Kimmo Svinhufvud
closer to each other, cornerwise. The counselor typically has a notepad or some blank papers on either his or her lap or on the table. On the table, there typically are other items, such as papers and forms, a calendar, pencils, and sometimes a mobile phone.
Figure 1. The setting
The data were analyzed using conversation analysis (e.g., Sidnell 2010; Sidnell and Stivers 2013) and multimodal analysis (e.g., Mondada 2014; Streeck, Goodwin and LeBaron 2011). The data were transcribed using the conversation analytic tran-scription conventions developed by Jefferson (2004). The transcripts were further complemented with multimodal annotations (e.g., Mondada 2007). To illustrate the note-taking activity, the movements of the writing hand holding the pencil have been transcribed on a separate line, including the exact points in relation to talk where the actual writing begins and ends. The embodied actions are further illustrated with photographs.
Some of the extracts include also details on nodding. According to Muntigl, Knight and Watkins (2012, 11), nods can be differentiated in terms of their trajec-tory (shallow vs. deep), rate (slow vs. fast) and number (single vs. double vs. mul-tiple) (see also Stivers 2008, 37). In addition to this, nods can be differentiated in terms of whether they start with a downward movement or an upward movement (e.g., Aoki 2011; Oshima 2014). In this article, the nods are transcribed in relation to their timing, trajectory, and direction. The beginning and end of the nodding
Nodding and note-taking 87
movements are indicated with an exclamation mark (!), similar to other embodied actions. In addition, each individual nod has been marked at the location where its trajectory is at its apex. Downward nods have been marked with n and upward nods with u. The depth of the nod also has been indicated with a lowercase letter n, indicating a shallow or a small nod, and an uppercase letter N, indicating a deep or bigger nod.
3. Analysis
3.1 Some general observations on the data
In the context of student counseling, writing is a recurrent and central activity in the interaction. All the counselors in my data take extensive notes during the dis-cussions, and the note-taking often is explained to the student or accounted for at the onset of the discussion and sometimes also during discussion. The notes taken figure in several ways in the interactions. At the onset of the counseling sessions, as the counselor is waiting for the student to arrive or as the student is filling a ques-tionnaire about his or her well-being that he or she is requested to fill each time (see Svinhufvud and Korkiakangas, in preparation), the counselor often is reading notes from the previous session. Also, during the discussions the counselors regu-larly make references to notes taken previously in that session.
However, although the notes are regularly used as a resource in the discus-sions, it is even more important to notice that the actual activity of note-taking is an essential component in the interaction. As we can see later, note-taking influ-ences strongly how the interactions unfold, how participants take turns in the talk, and what kind of roles they take in the discussion.
The following data extracts come from sequences where the counselor asks a question. The number of questions posed by a counselor in a single session var-ies considerably and is closely related to how talkative the student is. In one ses-sion, the counselor asks only seven questions altogether. These result in the stu-dent producing monologue-type talk that lasts several minutes at a time. On the other hand, in one of the sessions the student is relatively quiet. This results in the counselor asking a lot of questions, altogether thirty-two questions, the answers to some of which are relatively brief.
Although the emphasis of this paper is on embodied features in the interac-tion, it should be noted that in general the current data are very talk-oriented: Participants are seated at a table, and there is a lot of talk by both participants. To a large extent, counseling is done in talking. The relatively static nature of the interaction, however, makes the embodied features of the talk, such as writing,
88 Kimmo Svinhufvud
nodding, and changing the gaze and posture, very salient. Let us first look at how they figure in a simple case of note-taking.
3.2 Moving into writing
In CA studies on writing, it is quite common to find a reference to a “writing position” (Pälli and Lehtinen 2014) or “writing posture” (Jakonen 2016, this is-sue) or “ready to write” position” (Mortensen 2013) that involves holding the pen toward the paper and possibly assuming a certain body posture. In other words, a distinction is made between assuming a position to write and the actual activity of writing. According to Pälli and Lehtinen (2014, 100), through the writing position a participant “displays an expectation that something will be written.” As Hazel and Mortensen (2014) point out, the writing position also is used in activity shifts, such as openings, to demonstrate readiness for the next activity. Even in those cases, however, the writing position makes “the act of writing a relevant activity to be engaged in during the ensuing interaction (Hazel and Mortensen 2014, 14).”
This expectation that something will be written could be seen to indicate two things. First, it indicates that the person assuming the writing position is ready and able to write. Secondly, it indicates an expectation that something in the ensu-ing talk is worth writing down.
Although the distinction between writing and assuming the writing position is useful, it is paramount to note that the movement from not writing to writing doesn’t happen in one step. In other words, a person doesn’t move from a writing position to writing in a single movement. What I’m attempting to present here is the actual movement from not writing into writing as it happens in my data.
Let us first look at a prototypical, simple extract. Here the counselor and the student have been discussing the topic of how many hours per week the student uses for her studies. At the onset of the extract, the counselor is writing notes on the previous answer and asks then for more details:
Extract 1: Moving into writing
2
Extract 1: Moving into writing F = facial expression G = gaze H = writing hand B = posture 01 CO: joo. nii just. .hh ja sitte,
yeah. exactly. .hh and then, 02 (0.9)
03 CO: minkäs verran tällä hetkel menee niihin
how much time right now goes into those 04 laskareihin aikaa suurin piirtein.
lab exercises approximately. 05 (.)
06 ST: no mä oon tehny ne just +viimese*nä iltanah
well I have done them on the last eveningh coF *smile--> stF +increasing smile--> 07 s(h)ill(h)ee £et mä en oo oikee ehtiny
t(h)hat w(h)ay £so I haven’t really had time 08 niit,£ .hhh+ kunnol* tehä ni, (.) ei mul
them,£ .hhh properly do so, (.) it doesn’t coF -->*diminishing smile--> stF -->+ 09 ST: mee ku,
take more than, 10 (0.8)
11 ST: pa#ri tun*%§ti#i.
a couple of hours. coF -->* coG %gaze at notepad-->> coH §moves pen--> fig #fig.2 #fig.3
Figure 2: Gaze at ST Figure 3: Gaze + hand moving 12 CO: #pari tuntii §vii#kos joo.
a couple of hours a week yeah. coH -->§writing--> fig #fig.4 #fig.5
Nodding and note-taking 89
2
Extract 1: Moving into writing F = facial expression G = gaze H = writing hand B = posture 01 CO: joo. nii just. .hh ja sitte,
yeah. exactly. .hh and then, 02 (0.9)
03 CO: minkäs verran tällä hetkel menee niihin
how much time right now goes into those 04 laskareihin aikaa suurin piirtein.
lab exercises approximately. 05 (.)
06 ST: no mä oon tehny ne just +viimese*nä iltanah
well I have done them on the last eveningh coF *smile--> stF +increasing smile--> 07 s(h)ill(h)ee £et mä en oo oikee ehtiny
t(h)hat w(h)ay £so I haven’t really had time 08 niit,£ .hhh+ kunnol* tehä ni, (.) ei mul
them,£ .hhh properly do so, (.) it doesn’t coF -->*diminishing smile--> stF -->+ 09 ST: mee ku,
take more than, 10 (0.8)
11 ST: pa#ri tun*%§ti#i.
a couple of hours. coF -->* coG %gaze at notepad-->> coH §moves pen--> fig #fig.2 #fig.3
Figure 2: Gaze at ST Figure 3: Gaze + hand moving 12 CO: #pari tuntii §vii#kos joo.
a couple of hours a week yeah. coH -->§writing--> fig #fig.4 #fig.5
3
Figure 4: Hand to notepad Figure 5: Writing 13 (1.9)
14 CO: okei.
okay. 15 (2.1)§
coH -->§ 16 CO: joo.
yeah. 17 (1.2)
18 CO: mjoo.
myeah. 19 (2.2)§(2.6) §
coH §draws line §rests hand on notepad-->> 20 CO: .hh just.
.hh right.
90 Kimmo Svinhufvud
3
Figure 4: Hand to notepad Figure 5: Writing 13 (1.9)
14 CO: okei.
okay. 15 (2.1)§
coH -->§ 16 CO: joo.
yeah. 17 (1.2)
18 CO: mjoo.
myeah. 19 (2.2)§(2.6) §
coH §draws line §rests hand on notepad-->> 20 CO: .hh just.
.hh right.
The counselor’s question is tied to the previous talk with the connecting ja sitte/‘and then’ (1). The question is a simple wh-question formulated in one full clause (3–4). The counselor is asking the amount of time the student uses on the lab exercises. Although in theory the question could be answered by simply stating a number, the student delays answering the actual question, marking her answer as dispreferred. She produces a slightly longer answer, starting with a preface say-ing she does the exercises at the last minute. This could be seen as an account for what is to come.
As the student’s turn progresses, she starts to produce a faint smile (6). On viimesenä iltanah/‘last evening’ (6), the counselor’s facial expression changes from a serious one with a frown to an overt smile. Subsequently, the student produces the remainder of her turn laughing and smiling. The student’s laughter is display-ing her stance toward the issue; the smile and laughter mark doing the exercises at the last minute as a potentially delicate matter (Haakana 2001). The counselor responds to this display of stance by smiling. However, it can be said that the coun-selor’s response not only mirrors the student’s initial stance but also intensifies it (cf. Kaukomaa, Peräkylä, and Ruusuvuori 2015). Simultaneously with the intensi-fying emotional stance of the turn, the student also upgrades her account: She says she hasn’t had the time to do the exercises. In other words, she is appealing to her inability to act in another way, which is a typical way of giving accounts (Heritage 1984, 270). The student then assumes a more serious or neutral stance and contin-ues to answer the question: She pauses, as if to think about the answer, and then says the exercises only take her a couple of hours.
As the student is producing the part of her answer that finally answers the ques-tion, the counselor starts moving into writing. His gaze has been on the student and his right hand has been resting on the notepad holding the pen (Figure 2). On line 11, on the student’s tuntii/‘hours,’ the counselor starts moving his gaze from the student toward his notepad. Simultaneously, he also starts moving his pen-holding right hand to the notepad (Figure 3). As the student finishes her turn, the counselor confirms the answer by repeating it and then adding viikos/‘a week’ and a joo/‘yeah’ on line 12. As he is speaking, he completes his movement toward the notepad (Figure 4) and starts to write (Figure 5). The counselor’s writing follows the student moving from the answer preface to the actual answer, from a non-answer to an answer. However, together with verbally confirming the answer, the counselor’s writing also marks the student’s answer as worth noting and, as such, a
Nodding and note-taking 91
viable answer to the initial question (cf. Komter 2006, 209). Here, both participants also treat the student’s answer as complete and the student doesn’t continue it.
The writing continues, however, with the counselor producing response to-kens and the student gazing at the counselor. The repeated response tokens during the writing, such as the ones on lines 12, 14, and 16, are a recurrent phenomenon in the data. It could be argued that by repeating and alternating the response to-kens (e.g., nii, joo, okei) the counselor is displaying his continuous engagement with the student’s issues and his understanding of a complicated issue. However, it seems that by producing utterances such as this the counselor is also making room for the writing and, in a way, verbally holding the turn while the bodily activity of writing is brought to an end. Here, the student doesn’t interrupt the writing in any way but waits until it is finished. As the counselor finally finishes writing on line 16, he keeps gazing at the notepad and produces another response particle. Finally, he draws a line underneath the notes and starts reading his notes (19). This is the last question in a series and the counselor next produces an activity shift towards discussing other topics.
To summarize some of the key observations in this extract: The counselor re-ceives the student answer in several ways: with gaze, by smiling, repeating the student answer, by producing response particles, and by writing. Of these, writing clearly is distinct in that it involves a new, continuous activity. This movement from listening to writing is done especially by shifting the gaze and with the move-ment of the writing hand. We can observe at least three different postures and the movement between the three postures: (1) hands on the notepad holding a pen, being prepared to write but not really writing (Figure 2), (2) shifting the gaze and positioning the hand on the notepad, ready to write (Figures 3 and 4), and (3) writing (Figure 5). The first indicates preparedness to write, the second indicates a shift to writing, and the third is the actual activity of writing.
3.3 Nodding before writing
In Extract 1, the sequence of a question, an answer, and the writing of notes (togeth-er with the verbal repeating of the answer) resembles the prototypical Question–Answer–Typing structure described by Komter (2006) and Van Charldorp (2011). However, it is quite common that the writing of notes doesn’t simply follow the answer but coincides with it. The transition from listening to writing was done by shifting the gaze, moving the writing hand, and positioning the pencil on the notepad. Often the shift to writing, however, is produced with a more prominent change of posture and also marked with a clear nod.
The next extract features a more complex answer by the student and both nod-ding and writing concurrent with the student answer. As in the previous extract,
92 Kimmo Svinhufvud
also here the counselor’s question is located in a series of counselor questions and student answers.
Extract 2: Nodding before writing
4
Extract 2: Nodding before writing n = small/shallow nod N = pronounced/deep nod U = pronounced upward nod
01 ST: §%nii[nku sillai. ]
li[ke in a way.] coG %gaze at notepad--> coH §writing--> 02 CO: [↑mmm. ] 03 (4.0)
04 ST: et niinku haluun tehä jotain muutaki ku
so like I want to do also other things than 05 töitäh.
workh. 06 (0.2)&(4.9)§ &
coH -->§hand retracted--> stG &gaze at CO writing-->&gaze on CO--> 07 CO: .mth§ nii sä sanoit ett se, (.) jotenki
.mth yeah you said that it, (.) somehow the coH §hand resting on table--> 08 ilmapi%iri on sellanen painostava ni,
atmosphere is sort of oppressive so, coG -->%gaze at ST--> 09 (0.5)
10 ST: hhhhh
11 CO: osaat sä kertoa viel vähän tarkemmin et mitä
can you tell still a bit more precisely what 12 se [tarkottaa sulle. ]
it [means to you. ] 13 ST: [siis &no me ollaa,] m- me ollaan niinku
[well so we have, ] w- we have like stG -->& 14 puhuttu täst nyt, (!.) paljon ni!inku, (.)
talked about this now, (.) a lot like, (.) coN !---n--------!-------N-> 15 just, (!.) niinku nyt syks!yn aikan
just, (.) like now during this fall about coN -------!---n--------------!---N----------> 16 täst,! (.) koko hommast! niin[ku noitten ]
this, (.) whole thing li[ke with those] 17 CO: [joo. ]
[yeah. ] coN -----!------N----------!----------N--------> 18 ST: opis!kelukavereitten! kanssa niin tota:, .hh!hh
student friends so uhm:, .hhhh coN ----!-----N---------!---------N------------n! 19 siis semmonen et niinku kaikki on siel
so kind of so like everyone is there 20 jotenki hirveen stres#saantun!e#i,% (.§)
somehow really stressed out, (.) coN !-U-------------------> coG %gaze at notepad--> coH -->§moves pen--> fig #fig.6 #fig.7
Nodding and note-taking 93 5
Figure 6: Gaze at ST Figure 7: Upward nod 21 ja ah#di!stune!ita, !#§(0.7)!(.) siit !et ku! on !niin
and anxious, (0.7) (.) because there is so coN N-------!--n--!--n--! !----n----!---n-!--n-!-n-> coH -->§writing-->> fig #fig.8 #fig.9
Figure 8: Gaze at notepad Figure 9: Writing 22 pal!jon niin!ku hommaa ja kaikkee, .hhh ja, (.) ja
much like to do and all, .hhh and, (.) and coN ---!--n-----! 23 sit niinku,
then like, 24 (1.0)
25 ST: just se ett vaiks,
just the thing that although, 26 (0.9)
27 ST: on meil niinku sanottu heti alust saakka
we have like been told right from the start
Here, the counselor is taking a considerably long time to write down the notes on the previous answer (1–6). During this, the student produces an increment that re-peats the content of the previous answer without adding new information (Stivers 2008, 4–5). It is interesting to note that during the long pause on line 6, the stu-dent’s gaze is fixed on the counselor’s notepad and writing hand. As the counselor stops writing, the student immediately turns her gaze to the counselor’s face (6). After this, the counselor takes a quiet breath in and starts her next turn (7). Thus,
94 Kimmo Svinhufvud
the student treats the end of writing as projecting a next turn. As Komter (2006) and Mortensen (2013) point out, there seems to be more tolerance for overlap of talk and writing than there is for overlap in ordinary conversation. This is exempli-fied by the student’s increment ending on line 1. However, after this the student treats the counselor’s writing as incomplete and waits until it is finished before orienting to the next turn.
The counselor starts her question with a reference to something the student has said before: the atmosphere at her department is oppressive (7–8). In her ques-tion, the counselor asks the student to explain this in more detail and on a person-al level (what it means to you, 12). The student starts with a preface: She has dis-cussed the topic a lot with her friends. The preface doesn’t answer anything in the question, i.e., it doesn’t give details or explain the personal perspective. However, the preface highlights two things: (1) the theme is important for the student and (2) other students share the view of the department atmosphere being oppressive.
When the counselor was producing the question, she had turned her gaze from the notepad back to the student (8). During the student’s answer, the coun-selor is gazing intensely at the student. The counselor acknowledges the student answer by nodding. The nodding starts on the micropause on line 14 and contin-ues until line 18. The nodding stops on niin tota (18), which can be translated as ‘so uhm’ and typically indicates a return from a parenthetical utterance to the main topic (Hakulinen et al. 2004, §811, §1073). This is followed by a breath in. Together these indicate that the turn is continuing.
As the student continues her answer, the counselor keeps her gaze on the stu-dent (Figure 6). When the student produces the word stressaantunei/‘stressed out’ (20), the counselor produces another nod (Figure 7). This nod is clearly distinct from the nodding earlier in the extract. It is a strong backward-forward nod, start-ing with pulling the head first up and backward and then forward. As the coun-selor pulls her head backward, she breaks the gaze with the student, and as she nods forward, she turns her head toward the notepad (Figure 8). She then moves her writing hand to the notepad. After ahdistuneita/‘anxious’ (21), she starts writ-ing (Figure 9) and makes small nodding movements with her head.
As in the previous extract, here the counselor uses her rather intensive gaze to indicate she is listening actively. The start of writing cuts this gaze as the counselor starts orienting to the notepad and her writing. This transition from listening to writing is indicated with the writing initial nod. Also, as the gaze is no longer avail-able to demonstrate listening, the counselor uses nodding to indicate continuing listening (nodding during writing is analyzed in detail in Chapter 3.4).
In this extract, nodding serves specific functions. During the first part of the student answer (14–18), the timing and the function of the nodding are similar to the mid-telling nods described by Stivers (2008): The first nod comes after a
Nodding and note-taking 95
preface (cf. Stivers 2008, 38; see also Jefferson 1978, 219) to the answer. Prefaces typically reveal the speaker’s stance and possibly reconfigure something in the previous turn (cf. Clayman and Heritage 2002; Stivers 2008). Here, the preface is strongly conveying the student’s stance toward the topic (she thinks it’s important and the view is shared by others) and the nodding continues to the end of the pref-ace. Thus, the first instance of nodding can be analyzed as affiliating with student stance while simultaneously registering the details in the preface.
However, as the student continues her answer (20), nodding serves a different function. First, it is initiated by the student producing the first lexical element that can be seen as actually answering the initial question. Second, the nod is physically pronounced and, as opposed to a prototypical nod, starts with head pulled back-ward. Third, the nod marks the change from listening to writing and is followed by turning toward the notepad and the commencement of writing.
As seen in Extract 1, the writing is not always preceded by such a distinct nod. However, writing initial nods such as the one described are recurrent in the data (see also Extracts 3 and 4). What is the function of these nods? It is clear that these nods are marking the activity shift from listening to writing. Nods such as this can be observed after answers to questions that are looking for a specific answer. In Extract 2, the counselor was asking what a phrase used by the student earlier (op-pressive) means (more precisely and to you). In a transcript, Kaukomaa, Peräkylä, and Ruusuvuori (2015, 328) describe a similar nod as “Marking the Shared Stance With Head Raise+Nod.” In my data, similar nods are clearly multifunctional, indi-cating both an activity shift and the reception of the precise answer the counselor was looking for.
Contrary to Extract 1, here the sequence doesn’t proceed in the three actions of question, answer, and writing performed serially. As the counselor is writing notes, the student continues to talk. So the counselor’s listening to the student and writing can be seen as two activities performed simultaneously by the coun-selor (cf. Mondada 2011a). Indeed, the counselor’s nodding during the writing is displaying a dual involvement (Raymond and Lerner 2014): Her gaze and bodily orientation are toward the writing but the nodding displays that she is simultane-ously listening to the student’s continuing answer. The distinct writing initial nod, therefore, is displaying the shift from listening to the dual orientation of listening while writing. The counselor’s gaze and bodily orientation turn toward the mate-rial resources required to produce writing.
Extract 3 provides another example of the writing initial nod, this time by another counselor. Here, the student has come to the counseling to discuss her various career options and aspirations. At the beginning of the extract, the par-ticipants are orienting to a document on the table, a mind map the student has produced before the meeting (see Figure 10).
96 Kimmo Svinhufvud
Extract 3: Writing initial nod
6
Extract 3: Writing initial nod 01 (3.0)
coG >>gaze at mind map--> 02 CO: §.hh no mitäs sitte tää §viestintä§puoli. täähän
.hh well what about this media side. this coH §moves pen--> -->§pointing>§circling with pen--> 03 niinku ei oo kauheen kaukana mut et, (.) täs
like is not that far but so, (.) this 04 on vähän niinku tää, .hh tavallaan tämmönen
is a bit like this, .hh in a way sort of 05 kie:li, (.) kielen, (.) käyttö. kielen
lang:uage, (.) language, (.) usage. language 06 huolto. öö, (.) mitä kaikkia si%ihen
revision. öö, (.) what things are there coG %gaze at ST--> 07 liittyy [siis] §niinkun, (.) tekstinh,
connected [uhm ] like, (.) texth, coH -->§lifts pen 08 ST: [mmm.]
09 (1.1)
10 CO: editointi. toimi-, (.) toimitustyyppinen työ
editing. edi-, (.) editorial type of work 11 m-,
w-, 12 ST: mm[m.]
13 CO: [%mi]tä ajatuksii sit tarkemmin näihin
[ wh]at thoughts then more precisely these coG %gaze at mind map--> 14 m%itä sä,
what do you, coG %gaze at ST--> 15 (1.8)
16 CO: #mitä.
what. fig #fg.10
Figure 10: Leaning towards document 17 ST: no, (.) mua €jotenki §ei# sinänsä kiin#nost€a well, (.) I’m not somehow as such interested coB €retracting body -->€ coH §retracting hand--> fig #fig.11 #fig.12
Nodding and note-taking 97 7
Figure 11: Body retracting Figure 12: Leaning back 18 sellanen niinku,§#
in sort of like, coH -->§hand resting on table--> fig #fig.13
Figure 13: Listening posture 19 (0.9)
20 ST: lehtitoi#mit!taja[n# työ]
journalis[t work] 21 CO: [joo. ]
[yeah.] coN !------U----- fig #fig.14 #fig.15
Figure 14: Gaze at ST Figure 15: Upward nod 22 ST: että! %kir§jo[tetaa] jo#§tai,
that you wr[ite ] some,
98 Kimmo Svinhufvud
7
Figure 11: Body retracting Figure 12: Leaning back 18 sellanen niinku,§#
in sort of like, coH -->§hand resting on table--> fig #fig.13
Figure 13: Listening posture 19 (0.9)
20 ST: lehtitoi#mit!taja[n# työ]
journalis[t work] 21 CO: [joo. ]
[yeah.] coN !------U----- fig #fig.14 #fig.15
Figure 14: Gaze at ST Figure 15: Upward nod 22 ST: että! %kir§jo[tetaa] jo#§tai,
that you wr[ite ] some,
8
23 CO: [joo. ]
[yeah.] coN N---! coG -->%gaze at ST-->> coH -->§moving hand+ §paper--> fig #fig.16
Figure 16: Moving gaze + paper 24 (1.0)§(.) §
coH -->§pen on paper §writing-->> 25 ST: §hirveen# hienoja uutisia.
really wonderful news. fig #fig.17
Figure 17: Pen on paper 26 (.)
27 CO: nii.
yeah.
In this extract, the counselor’s questioning turn is rather complex and very open. It starts with a vague wh-word: mitäs and continues with a long specification of the question topic (2–11). The final part of the question turn is also a very open ques-tion (13–14). From the beginning of the turn the counselor leans toward the mind map, points at it with a pen, and starts circling with the pen a section in the docu-ment while simultaneously gazing alternately at the document and the student.
Nodding and note-taking 99
As the student starts her answer (17), the counselor starts retracting his body (Figure 11). He ends up leaning back in the chair (Figure 12), and he folds his arms and rests his writing hand on the table while gazing at the student (Figure 13). His posture could be described as a listening posture, indicating his orientation to the student answer. It is interesting to notice that the student seems to delay her an-swer (niinku/‘like’ on 18 and the one-second pause on 19) until the counselor has assumed the listening posture.
As the student continues her answer and produces the next item (she’s not interested in the work of a writing journalist), the counselor again makes a transi-tion from listening (Figure 14) to writing together with a nod similar to the one in Extract 2. He tilts his head backward after lehtitoimittajan (20; Figure 15), pro-duces a joo/‘yeah’ and then a forward nod (22). His hand then starts moving to-ward the paper. He turns toward the notepad and adjusts the paper first with the left hand and then the right hand (Figure 16) while producing another joo. As the student continues her answer, the counselor starts writing (Figure 17).
When compared to the writing initial nod in Extract 2, there are several simi-larities. The nods are produced after the counselor’s question seeking a specific an-swer related to something that has been discussed before (as opposed to a question introducing a new topic). The nods are produced immediately after the student produces the first lexical element (a noun phrase) that can be seen to really answer the question. In both extracts, the nod has a strong trajectory compared to normal nodding, and the nod starts with an upward movement. There also are some dif-ferences. In Extract 2, the nod and the movement to writing were preceded by a preface to the student’s answer that revealed the student’s stance and was received with affiliative nodding. The writing initial nod that then was produced could be seen to both contrast with the previous nods (it was stronger and started with an upward movement) but also to continue them. In Extract 3, there were no overt displays of stance (and, consequently, no counselor nodding) but the beginning of the student’s answer was more accommodating to the counselor assuming the lis-tening posture. Also in Extract 3, the writing initial nod was produced in conjunc-tion with the verbally produced response particle joo, which, in general, responds to the factual content of the previous utterance to be understood (Sorjonen 2001). It seems that the nodding during an answer preface seems to be related to display-ing affiliation (Stivers 2008), whereas the writing initial nod, the movement into writing and the subsequent writing of the notes, is related to the factual content of the answer containing a noteworthy item that answers the initial question.
In summary, in Extract 3 we can note the following: As the counselor is pro-ducing his question, he is oriented toward a document. As the student starts an-swering the question, however, the counselor assumes a posture clearly indicating listening and being responsive. And once again, the transition from listening to
100 Kimmo Svinhufvud
writing is done in a pronounced way. The transition involves multiple semiotic modes simultaneously or in progression: response particles, nodding, changing the gaze and the body posture, and manipulating an artifact.
To highlight the typical features of the writing initial nod, let’s look at one more extract that features a similar nod. Here, the extract starts when the student’s answer is well under way. She is explaining how she always feels better during the spring term:
Extract 4: Writing initial nod
9
Extract 4: Writing initial nod 01 (0.9)
coG >>gaze at ST--> 02 ST: tuntuu et, (.) kevääl mä niinku sit,
it feels that, (.) in the spring I like then, 03 (.) .hh oon aina ottanu vähän
(.) .hh have always taken a bit 04 ra#uhallisemmin tai antanu itte- !(.)
easier or let myself- (.) coN !---> fig #fig.18
Figure 18: Gaze at ST 05 %itteni #ot[ta§a! %rau]#hallisemmin et,
myself ta[ke it e]asier so, 06 CO: [°okei.° ]
[°okay.° ] coN ----------U----N! coG %eyes closed------%gaze on notepad->> coH §moving pencil to notepad-> fig #fig.19 #fig.20
Figure 19: Upward nod Figure 20: Gaze + pen at notepad 07 (§.)
coH §writing-->> 08 CO: #joo.=
yeah.= fig #fig.21
Nodding and note-taking 101
9
Extract 4: Writing initial nod 01 (0.9)
coG >>gaze at ST--> 02 ST: tuntuu et, (.) kevääl mä niinku sit,
it feels that, (.) in the spring I like then, 03 (.) .hh oon aina ottanu vähän
(.) .hh have always taken a bit 04 ra#uhallisemmin tai antanu itte- !(.)
easier or let myself- (.) coN !---> fig #fig.18
Figure 18: Gaze at ST 05 %itteni #ot[ta§a! %rau]#hallisemmin et,
myself ta[ke it e]asier so, 06 CO: [°okei.° ]
[°okay.° ] coN ----------U----N! coG %eyes closed------%gaze on notepad->> coH §moving pencil to notepad-> fig #fig.19 #fig.20
Figure 19: Upward nod Figure 20: Gaze + pen at notepad 07 (§.)
coH §writing-->> 08 CO: #joo.=
yeah.= fig #fig.21
10
Figure 21: Writing 09 ST: =mä oon tosi hitaasti sit suorittanu.
=I have really slowly then finished. 10 (0.2)
11 CO: joo.
yeah.
As the student’s answer progresses, the counselor is gazing at the student (1). Again, when the student’s answer reaches a point where it finally answers the question (the reason why the springs are easier for her), the counselor starts a strong upward nod (4). He closes his eyes (5) and nods upward and then quickly downward. He produces a quiet okei (6), while opening his eyes and moving his gaze to the notepad. Concurrent with the downward movement of the head, he starts moving the pencil toward the notepad (5) and, during a micro pause on line 7, starts writing. Once again, a strong upward-starting nod is used to mark the shift from listening to writing down the notes.
Extracts 2–4 are among the ones with the most prominent writing initial nods. At other times, the nod may be slightly less noticeable, it may start with the more
102 Kimmo Svinhufvud
typical downward movement, or is very much produced together with the change of gaze and posture toward the notepad. Nods such as these frequently are used to mark the transition to writing. Typically, as in all three of these extracts, they seem to be connected to questions that seek a specific answer to a question re-lated to something in the previous discussion as opposed to questions that start a new topic or work as agenda-related moves (Peräkylä 1995: 115–116; Vehviläinen 1999: 87–125). Also, nods such as these often are produced after some previous nodding by the counselor (as in Extract 2).
3.4 Nodding after writing
We have looked in detail how the counselor moves into writing and how nodding is related to receiving and writing down the student answer. Let’s return to Extract 3 to see what happens after the counselor has started writing and the student con-tinues her answer. As in Extract 2, here the counselor keeps displaying his atten-tion to the student’s continuing answer with embodied resources, thus displaying his dual orientation to both writing and listening:
Extract 3 (extension): Nodding during writing
11
Extract 3 (extension): Nodding during writing 24 (1.0)§(.) §
coH -->>§pen on paper §writing--> 25 ST: hirveen hienoja uutisia.
really wonderful news. 26 (.)
27 CO: nii.
yeah. 28 ST: tai muukaa sellanen.
or anything like that. 29 CO: joo.
yeah. 30 ST: enemmän se i- ihan ite #tekstin kanssa
more the j- just with the text fig #fig.22
Figure 22: Writing 31 työskente*l!y# on sellan#en m!ist mä oon !aina
working is kind of what I have always coF *frown--> coN !-u----------n----!----n------! fig #fig.23 #fig.24
Figure 23: Upward nod Figure 24: Downward nod + frown 32 tykänny että,
liked so, 33 CO: joo.
yeah. 34 ST: että miten tää asia kannattais sanoa ja,
like how this thing should be said and, 35 (.)
36 CO: joo.
yeah.
Nodding and note-taking 103
11
Extract 3 (extension): Nodding during writing 24 (1.0)§(.) §
coH -->>§pen on paper §writing--> 25 ST: hirveen hienoja uutisia.
really wonderful news. 26 (.)
27 CO: nii.
yeah. 28 ST: tai muukaa sellanen.
or anything like that. 29 CO: joo.
yeah. 30 ST: enemmän se i- ihan ite #tekstin kanssa
more the j- just with the text fig #fig.22
Figure 22: Writing 31 työskente*l!y# on sellan#en m!ist mä oon !aina
working is kind of what I have always coF *frown--> coN !-u----------n----!----n------! fig #fig.23 #fig.24
Figure 23: Upward nod Figure 24: Downward nod + frown 32 tykänny että,
liked so, 33 CO: joo.
yeah. 34 ST: että miten tää asia kannattais sanoa ja,
like how this thing should be said and, 35 (.)
36 CO: joo.
yeah.
12
37 (0.1)%§(0.8)*(0.1)
coF -->* coG -->>%gaze at ST-->> coH -->§lifting hand 38 ST: s§anoa ja,#
said and, coH >§hand resting on table-->> fig #fig.25
Figure 25: Listening posture 39 (1.2)
40 ST: tai ilmasta, or expressed, 41 (.)
42 CO: joo.
yeah. 43 (0.8)
104 Kimmo Svinhufvud
As the student answer continues, the counselor keeps writing notes (Figure 22). Starting from line 30, the student produces an elaboration of her previous state-ment: she is interested in working with existing texts (i.e., editing them). The coun-selor keeps writing but receives the student’s explanation with a serious frown and additional nods (Figures 23 and 24). As the student continues her answer, the counselor writes and receives the answer with response particles (33 and 36). Then, during the pause on line 37, the counselor stops writing and, once again, assumes the listening position by folding his arms and turning his gaze toward the student (Figure 25). The student’s answer continues for quite a while, but the counselor is not turning back toward his notes after this.
Here, as the counselor keeps writing, he simultaneously keeps his attention on the student talk. It is interesting that while his bodily orientation and gaze are now toward the notes and his own writing, he still keeps receiving the student talk by nodding. Nodding can be viewed as a visual or visible modality in that it is received by looking (e.g., Nevile 2015, 131). Here, the counselor nods when his own gaze is not on the student. Thus, it is not possible to fully observe whether the counselor in these instances can monitor the recipiency of the nodding or not. Either nodding doesn’t require to be observed or the counselor treats the student observing him or her as self-evident. Here, the placement and function of nodding once again are similar to those in Stivers (2008): The student produces additional details in her answer and also describes her stance (30–32). The nodding is a way of both show-ing understanding of the details in the story and affiliating with the stance.
Based on the observations on the participants’ own orientations, it is perhaps justified to describe note-taking as a kind of a multiactivity (Haddington et al. 2014). The counselor’s note-taking, of course, is displaying quite intensive engage-ment with the student’s answer. Also, both the counselor’s listening and writing of notes are activities directly in the service of the overall activity of counseling. Nevertheless, writing does take up some of the resources that normally are mo-bilized for displaying listening, especially the gaze and the postural orientation toward the student. Also, because the written notes are not available to the student, writing in this context can be described at least a semi-private activity.
Moving into writing changes the counselor’s focus considerably. He turns his gaze away from the student and toward his notes and writing. Writing is an activity very distinct from listening and it shifts the counselor’s attention away from the student. This poses a moral dilemma: Together with the somewhat private activ-ity of writing, the counselor still needs to display his continuing attention to the student’s answer. Thus, with the production of response particles and nodding, the counselor displays continuing recipiency. In this extract, the serious frown and nodding give an impression of really listening to the student, of understanding her answer, and of affiliating with her stance.
Nodding and note-taking 105
4. Discussion
In this paper I have described how student counselors move from not writing to actually writing notes. This move involves turning the gaze toward the notes, changing the posture and bodily orientation, and moving the writing hand and the pen toward the paper. At least three kinds of postures related to writing were identified:
1. Sitting with the hands resting on the notepad holding a pen, typically lean-ing back in the chair. This posture indicates that the person is listening and is ready to write. It also could be seen to indicate that what the person speak-ing says is potentially worth noting and recording (e.g., Hazel and Mortensen 2014; Pälli and Lehtinen 2014).
2. Placing the pen on the notepad, indicating the commencement of writing. This posture typically involves the change of gaze and bodily orientation to-ward the notes. It should be noted that this still doesn’t necessarily mean that the person actually starts writing immediately.
3. The actual writing when the pen starts moving on the notepad, and the gaze is fixed on the notepad.
It also was observed how nodding is used in various ways in relation to writing and receiving student answers. Before the counselor starts writing, he or she uses nods to display affiliation and alignment with the student answer (Muntigl, Knight, and Watkins 2012; Stivers 2008). However, nodding also is recurrently used to mark the transition from listening to writing. In this position, the nods are produced in a pronounced manner, distinct from the nodding during listening. These writing initial nods typically are produced in conjunction with the change of bodily ori-entation and gaze. Repeatedly across the data but not exclusively, this nod is per-formed starting with the head first pulling backward. This way of nodding seems to display understanding and is possibly related to the counselor seeking a specific answer to his or her question.
The counselor receiving the student answer can be described as a kind of a multiactivity (Haddington et al. 2014). The counselor is repeatedly asking ques-tions and, as a consequence, listening to the student’s sometimes extensive and detailed answers. In psychotherapy interaction, which bears a lot of similarities to the current data, it is typical for the therapist to display affiliation (Muntigl, Knight and Watkins 2012) and empathy (Voutilainen 2012). In student counseling, how-ever, the counselors also take upon themselves the task of taking detailed notes on the student talk, which requires its own orientation.
As Van Charldorp (2013) points out, in police interrogations both partici-pants orient to the dual goals of interrogating and writing up the record, treating
106 Kimmo Svinhufvud
writing at certain stages even as the main goal. In student counseling, writing is not treated as the primary activity (Haddington et al. 2014, 23) or the prioritized activity (Mondada 2014, 46). It is clear, however, that both participants treat writ-ing as a central activity structuring the interaction, e.g., the student by waiting for the writing to be finished before orienting to the next turn (Extract 2) or the counselor making room for writing by producing repeated response tokens while writing (Extract 1).
It is typical in situations where a participant manages dual activities simul-taneously (e.g., Deppermann 2014; Raymond and Lerner 2014) for them to use a variety of embodied practices both to perform the simultaneous activities and to display performing them simultaneously. In the current data, as the counselor starts writing and thus changes his or her orientation, he or she displays continu-ing the activity of listening, both vocally (response tokens) and in an embodied way (by nodding and by facial expressions).
In the context of note-taking, the moral order of writing is ambivalent. It is clear that writing retrospectively marks the student’s answer as “appropriate and ‘recordable’ ” (Komter 2006, 205) or as “worth writing down” (Pälli and Lehtinen 2014, 103); in other words, noteworthy. However, at the same time writing poses interactional problems: Writing breaks the mutual gaze between the participants, the student often has to wait for the counselor to finish his or her writing, and the notes produced are somewhat private. It could be argued that nodding is one way of managing this ambivalent moral nature of writing. The opaqueness of in-dividual writing sets a moral expectation for the person moving into writing: (1) to indicate clearly the transition into writing and (2) to indicate his or her ability to simultaneously write and listen. This is done, among other means, by nodding: with a distinct, writing initial nod to indicate transition from a shared activity to a private one and with nods during writing that show that the counselor is still listening even though he or she also is writing.
Transcript conventions
Talk has been transcribed according to conventions developed by Gail Jefferson. Multimodal details have been transcribed according to the following conventions: https://franz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/franz/user_upload/redaktion/Mondada_conv_multimodality.pdf
Nodding and note-taking 107
References
Aoki, Hiromi. 2011. “Some Functions of Speaker Head Nods.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World, ed. by Charles Goodwin and Curtis LeBaron, 93–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, Steven, and John Heritage. 2002. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
Darwin, Charles. 2009[1890]. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Stefani, Elwys, Paul Sambre, and Dorien Van De Mieroop. 2016, this issue. “The Interactional History of Examples and Parentheses: Taking Notes in Multiparty Interaction.”
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2014. “Multimodal Participation in Simultaneous Joint Projects: Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Coordination in Paramedic Emergency Drills.” In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 247 –281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.187.09dep
Freed, Alice F., and Susan Ehrlich (eds). 2010. Why Do You Ask?: The Function of Questions in Institutional Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, Charles. 2000. “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
Haakana, Markku. 2001. “Laughter as a Patient’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text 21: 187–219.
Haddington, Pentti, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile. 2014. Towards Multiactivity as a Social and Interactional Phenomenon. In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 3–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.187.01had
Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen, and Irja Alho. 2004. Iso suomen kielioppi [A Comprehensive Finnish Grammar]. Helsinki: SKS.
Hazel, Spencer, and Kristian Mortensen. 2014. “Embodying the Institution: Object Manipulation in Developing Interaction in Study Counselling Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 10–29. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.11.016
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Jakonen, Teppo. 2016, this issue. “Gaining Access to Another Participant’s Writing in the
Classroom.”Jefferson, Gail. 1978. “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” In Studies in the
Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. by Jim Schenkein, 219–248. New York: Academic Press.
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
Kaukomaa, Timo, Anssi Peräkylä, and Johanna Ruusuvuori. 2015. “How Listeners Use Facial Expression to Shift the Emotional Stance of the Speaker’s Utterance.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48: 319–341. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058607
Kettner, Viktoria A., and Jeremy I. M. Carpendale. 2013. “Developing Gestures for No and Yes: Head Shaking and Nodding in Infancy.” Gesture 13: 193–209. doi: 10.1075/gest.13.2.04ket
108 Kimmo Svinhufvud
Komter, Martha. 2006. “From Talk to Text: The Interactional Construction of a Police Record.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 201–228. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3903_2
Komter, Martha. 2012. “The Career of a Suspect’s Statement: Talk, Text, Context.” Discourse Studies 14: 731–752. doi: 10.1177/1461445612457486
Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. “Multimodal Resources for Turn-Taking: Pointing and the Emergence of Possible Next Speakers.” Discourse Studies 9: 194–225. doi: 10.1177/1461445607075346
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011a. “The Organization of Concurrent Courses of Action in Surgical Demonstrations.” In Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in Material World, ed. by Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron, 207–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011b. “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 542–552. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. “The Local Constitution of Multimodal Resources for Social Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 65: 137–156. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
Mortensen, Kristian. 2013. “Writing Aloud: Some Interactional Functions of the Public Display of Emergent Writing.” Participatory Innovation Conference 2013 Lahti, Finland: 119–125.
Muntigl, Peter, Naomi Knight, and Ashley Watkins. 2012. “Working to Keep Aligned in Psychotherapy: Using Nods as a Dialogic Resource to Display Affiliation.” Language and Dialogue 2: 9–27. doi: 10.1075/ld.2.1.01mun
Nevile, Maurice. 2015. “The Embodied Turn in Research on Language and Social Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 48: 121–151. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499
Oshima, Sae. 2014. “Achieving Consensus through Professionalized Head Nods: The Role of Nodding in Service Encounters in Japan.” International Journal of Business Communication 51: 31–57. doi: 10.1177/2329488413516207
Peräkylä, Anssi. 1995. AIDS Counselling: Institutional Interaction and Clinical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511597879
Piolat, Annie, Thierry Olive, and Ronald T. Kellogg. 2005. “Cognitive Effort during Note Taking.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 19: 291–312. doi: 10.1002/acp.1086
Pälli, Pekka, and Esa Lehtinen. 2014. “Making Objectives Common in Performance Appraisal Interviews.” Language & Communication 39: 92–108. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2014.09.002
Raymond, Geoffrey, and Gene H. Lerner. 2014. “A Body and Its Involvements: Adjusting Action for Dual Involvements.” In Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, ed. by Pentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 227–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.187.08ray
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sidnell, Jack and Tanya Stivers (eds). 2013. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena. 2001. Responding in Conversation: A Study of Response Particles in Finnish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.70
Spitz, Rene Arpad. 1957. No and Yes: On the Genesis of Human Communication. New York: International Universities Press.
Nodding and note-taking 109
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling: When Nodding Is a Token of Affiliation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 31–57. doi: 10.1080/08351810701691123
Stivers, Tanya. 2010. “An Overview of the Question–Response System in American English Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 2772–2781. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin, and Curtis LeBaron (eds). 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
“Student counselors’ website,” University of Helsinki, last modified 16.2.2015, https://flamma.helsinki.fi/en/HY314486.
Svinhufvud, Kimmo, and Terhi Korkiakangas. (in preparation). “Documents, Movement and Learning: The Openings of Student Counseling Sessions.”
Van Charldorp, Tessa. 2011. “The Coordination of Talk and Typing in Police Interrogations.” Crossroads of Language, Interaction and Culture 8: 61–92.
Van Charldorp, Tessa. 2013. “The Intertwining of Talk and Technology: How Talk and Typing Are Combined in the Various Phases of the Police Interrogation.” Discourse & Communication 7: 221–240. doi: 10.1177/1750481313476776
Vehviläinen, Sanna. 1999. Structures of Counselling Interaction: A Conversation Analytic Study of Counselling Encounters in Career Guidance Training. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
Voutilainen, Liisa. 2012. “Responding to Emotion in Cognitive Psychotherapy.” In Emotion in Interaction, ed. by Anssi Peräkylä, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 235–255. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199730735.003.0011
Author’s addressKimmo SvinhufvudFinnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in InteractionUniversity of HelsinkiP. O. Box 4 (Vuorikatu 3)00014, HELSINKIFinland
About the authorKimmo Svinhufvud is a post-doctoral researcher at the Finnish Centre of Excellence in Research on Intersubjectivity in Interaction, the University of Helsinki. He is particularly interested in the use of writing and material objects in interaction. He has published articles in journals Text & Talk and Learning, Culture and Social Interaction. He is also an experienced writing coach, and he has published three books in Finnish on academic writing and the pedagogy of writing.