‘Yes, we’re done’ – ‘except Ricardo’
Using speech, body and artefacts to perform inclusion and exclusion in peer discussions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.23791Keywords:
argumentation, multimodality, oral argumentation skills, identity workAbstract
Oral argumentations among peers always involve negotiation of group identity. By means of multimodal analysis, this case study shows how children mobilize interactional space, physical surroundings, as well as verbal and paraverbal resources for the embodied enactment of in- and exclusion, of affiliation and disaffiliation, and the negotiation of group identity. We argue that the processing of interpersonal relationships constitutes a crucial aspect of oral argumentation skills and that in particular multiparty interaction provides an indispensable source for the study of oral argumentation and its acquisition. The example analysed is a conversation among four elementary schoolchildren (8 years) working on a cooperative decision task. The conversation is characterized by the consolidation of a 3 versus 1 constellation, ultimately preventing the group from reaching a consensual decision.
References
Andersen, P., Gannon, J. & Kalchik, J. (2013). Proxemic and haptic interaction: The closeness continuum. In Nonverbal Communication (pp. 295–329). De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110238150.295
Auer, P. (2021). Turn-allocation and gaze: A multimodal revision of the ‘current-speaker-selects-next’ rule of the turn-taking system of conversation analysis. Discourse Studies, 23(2), 117–140.
Baines, E. & Howe, C. (2010). Discourse topic management and discussion skills in middle childhood: The effects of age and task. First Language, 30(3–4), 508–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723710370538
Becker-Mrotzek, M. (2009). Mündliche Kommunikationskompetenz. In Münd-liche Kommunikation und Gesprächsdidaktik (pp. 66–83). Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
Bose, I. & Hannken-Illjes, K. (2020). On the role of voice and prosody in argumentation among pre-schoolchildren. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 4(1), 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12415
Bruxelles, S. & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2004). Coalitions in polylogues. Polylogue, 36(1), 75–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00037-7
Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407
Cavallin, B. A. & Houston, B. K. (1980). Aggressiveness, maladjustment, body experience and the protective function of personal space. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 170–176. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198001)36:1<170::AID-JCLP2270360119>3.0.CO;2-D
Clark, A.-M., Anderson, R. C., Kuo, L., Kim, I.-H., Archodidou, A. & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2003). Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023429215151
Clausen, Y. & Scheffler, T. (2022). A corpus-based analysis of meaning variations in German tag questions Evidence from spoken and written conversational corpora. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 18(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2019-0060
Deppermann, A. (2018). Sprache in der multimodalen Interaktion. In Sprache im kommunikativen, interaktiven und kulturellen Kontext (Vol. 3, pp. 51–86). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110538601-004
Dersley, I. & Wootton, A. J. (2001). In the heat of the sequence: Interactional features preceding walkouts from argumentative talk. Language in Society, 30(4), 611–638.
Duke, M. P. & Nowicki, S. (1972). A new measure and social-learning model for interpersonal distance. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 6(2–3), 119–132.
Ehlich, K. (2014). Argumentieren als sprachliche Ressourcen des diskursiven Lernens. In A. Schreier-Hornung, G. Carobbio & D. Sorrentino (eds), Diskursive und textuelle Strukturen in der Hochschuldidaktik: Deutsch und Italienisch im Vergleich (pp. 41–54). Waxmann.
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
Goodwin, C. (2013). The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative action. Cambridge University Press.
Greco, S., Perret-Clermont, A. N., Iannaccone, A., Rocci, A., Convertini, J. & Schar, R. (2018). The analysis of implicit premises within children’s argumentative inferences. Informal Logic, 38(4), 438–470. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v38i4.5029
Grundler, E. (2008). Gesprächskompetenz – ein Systematisierungsvorschlag im Horizont schulischer Bildungsstandards und Kompetenzen. Didaktik Deutsch, 24, 48–69.
Grundler, E. (2011). Kompetent Argumentieren: Ein Gesprächsanalytisch Fundiertes Modell. Stauffenburg.
Haddington, P., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M. (2013). Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110291278
Hagemann, J. (2009). Tag questions als Evidenzmarker: Formulierungsdynamik, sequentielle Struktur und Funktionen redezuginterner tags. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, 10(2009), 145–176.
Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65(5), 1003–1026.
Hample, D. & Irions, A. L. (2015). Arguing to display identity. Argumentation, 29(4), 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9351-9
Hannken-Illjes, K. & Bose, I. (2019). Frozen: Children in argumentation between the agonistic and cooperation. Informal Logic, 39(4), 465–495. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i4.6028
Hausendorf, H., Mondada, L. & Schmitt, R. (2012). Raum als interaktive Ressource: Eine Explikation. In H. Hausendorf, L. Mondada & R. Schmitt (eds), Raum als interaktive Ressource (pp. 7–36). Narr Verlag.
Heim, J. M. (2019). Turn-peripheral management of common ground: A study of Swabian gell. Journal of Pragmatics, 141, 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.007
Heller, V. (2021). Embodied displays of ‘doing thinking’: Epistemic and interactive functions of thinking displays in children’s argumentative activities. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 636671–636671. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.636671
Jadallah, M., Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Miller, B. W., Kim, I.-H., Kuo, L.-J., Dong, T. & Wu, X. (2011). Influence of a teacher’s scaffolding moves during child-led small-group discussions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 194–230. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371498
Kendon, A. (2009). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge University Press.
Kidwell, M. (2013). Framing, grounding, and coordinating conversational interaction: Posture, gaze, facial expression, and movement in space. In Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) (vol. 38/1, pp. 100–112). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.100
König, K. (2017). Question tags als Diskursmarker? Ansätze zu einer systematischen Beschreibung von ne im gesprochenen Deutsch. In H. Blühdorn, A. Deppermann, H. Helmer & T. Spranz-Fogasy (eds), Diskursmarker Im Deutschen: Reflexionen Und Analysen (pp. 233–258). Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Krelle, M. (2011). Dimensionen von Gesprächskompetenz: Anmerkungen zur Debatte über mündliche Fähigkeiten im Deutschunterricht. In Sprachliches Lernen zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit (pp. 13–34). hep.
Krelle, M. (2014). Mündliches Argumentieren in leistungsorientierter Perspektive: Eine empirische Analyse von Unterrichtsdiskussionen in der neunten Jahrgangsstufe. Schneider Hohengehren.
Kreuz, J., Luginbühl, M. & Mundviler, V. (2019). Gesprächsorganisation in argumentativen Peer-Gesprächen von Schulkindern. In I. Bose, K. Hannken-Illjes & S. Kurtenbach (eds), Kinder im Gespräch – Mit Kindern im Gespräch (pp. 33–62). Frank und Timme.
Kreuz, J., Mundwiler, V. & Luginbühl, M. (2017). Mündliches Argumentieren im Spannungsfeld zwischen Kollaboration und Abgrenzung – Zu lokalen Gruppenidentitäten in schulischen Einigungsdiskussionen. Bulletin VALS-ASLA, 147–159.
Kyratzis, A. (2004). Talk and interaction among children and the co-construction of peer groups and peer culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33(1), 625–649. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144008
Ludwig, S. (2012). Tetraloge – Zur verbalen Dominanz in informellen Alltagsgesprächen. https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/23516/
Luginbühl, M. & Müller-Feldmeth, D. (2022). Oral argumentation skills between process and product. Languages, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020139
Luginbühl, M., Mundwiler, V., Kreuz, J., Müller-Feldmeth, D. & Hauser, S. (2021). Quantitative and qualitative approaches in conversation analysis: Methodological reflections on a study of argumentative group discussions. Gesprächsforschung-Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion, 22, 179–236.
McIlvenny, P., Broth, M. & Haddington, P. (2009). Communicating place, space and mobility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1879–1886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.014
Mirivel, J. C. (2011). Embodied arguments: Verbal claims and bodily evidence. In J. Streeck, C. Goodwin & C. D. LeBaron (eds), Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World (pp. 254–263). Cambridge University Press.
Mondada, L. (2007). Interaktionsraum und Koordinierung. In R. Schmitt (ed.), Koordination: Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion (pp. 55–93). G. Narr.
Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977–1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.019
Mondada, L. (2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.004
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.1_12177
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mondada, L. (2019). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016
Mönnich, A. & Spiegel, C. (2009). Kommunikation beobachten und beurteilen. In M. Becker-Mrotzek (ed.), Mündliche Kommunikation und Gesprächsdidaktik (vol. 3, pp. 429–444). WBV Media.
Morek, M. (2015). Dissensbearbeitung unter Gleichaltrigen – (k)ein Kontext für den Erwerb argumentativer Gesprächsfähigkeiten? (Vol. 62).
Nevile, M. (2015). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499
Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. & Rauniomaa, M. (2014). Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Novelli, D., Drury, J. & Reicher, S. (2010). Come together: Two studies concerning the impact of group relations on personal space. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466609X449377
Quasthoff, U. (2021). Methodische Überlegungen zur Datenbasis in der Interaktion-alen Diskursanalyse. In U. Quasthoff, V. Heller & M. Morek (eds), Diskurserwerb in Familie, Peergroup und Unterricht: Passungen und Teilhabechancen (pp. 43–76). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110707168-004
Rigotti, E. & Greco, S. (2019). Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Springer Verlag.
Schmitt, R. (2013). Körperlich-räumliche Aspekte der Interaktion (Vol. 64). Narr Francke Attempto.
Schmitt, R. & Deppermann, A. (2007). Monitoring und Koordination als Voraussetzungen der multimodalen Konstitution von Interaktionsräumen. In R. Schmitt (ed.), Koordination: Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion (pp. 95–128). G. Narr.
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J. R., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K., Couper-Kuhlen, E., Deppermann, A., Gilles, P. & Günthner, S. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift Zur Verbalen Interaktion.
Simaki, V., Paradis, C., Skeppstedt, M., Sahlgren, M., Kucher, K. & Kerren, A. (2020). Annotating speaker stance in discourse: The Brexit blog corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 215–248.
Spiegel, C. (2006). Unterricht als Interaktion. Gesprächsanalytische Studien zum kommunikativen Spannungsfeld zwischen Lehrern, Schülern und Institution. Radolfzell: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung. Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.
Stivers, T., Mondada, L. & Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (eds), The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation (pp. 3–24). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
Streeck, J. (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge University Press.
Streeck, J. & Kallmeyer, W. (2001). Interaction by inscription. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(4), 465–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00126-5
Vogt, R. (2009). Gesprächskompetenz – Vorschlag eines gesprächsanalytisch fundierten Konzepts. In Sprechen und Kommunizieren. Entwicklungsperspektiven, Diagnosemöglichkeiten und Lernszenarien in Deutschdidaktik und Deutsch-unterricht. Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.
Walton, D. (1982). Topical Relevance in Argumentation. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wanderon, C. (2020). Eine Untersuchung dissentischer multimodaler Praktiken in schulischen Einigungsdiskussionen auf der Primarstufe. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Basel.
