Using the methodology of conversation analysis to examine interactions in outdoor activities, this study explores how participants specifically see an object or event in the development of an activity. In particular, the distinction between (visual) perception and knowledge is oriented to by the participants as a practical issue that informs their alternative action constructions. This distinction matters as a resource for implementing an action in an interaction. The data are in Japanese with English translations.
BoldenGB (2012) Across languages and cultures: Brokering problems of understanding in conversational repair. Language in Society41(1): 97–121.
2.
BoldenGB (2013) Unpacking “self” repair and epistemics in conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly76(4): 314–342.
3.
FoxBAHeinemannT (2015) The alignment of manual and verbal displays in requests for the repair of an object. Research on Language and Social Interaction48(3): 342–362.
4.
GoffmanE (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
5.
GoodwinC (1994) Professional vision. American Anthropologist96(3): 606–633.
6.
GoodwinC (1996) Transparent vision. In: OchsESchegloffEAThompsonS (eds) Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.370–404.
7.
GoodwinC (2003) The body in action. In: CouplandJGwynR (eds) Discourse, the Body and Identity. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, pp.19–42.
8.
GoodwinC (2007) Environmentally coupled gestures. In: DuncanSCassellJLevyE (eds) Gesture and the Dynamic Dimensions of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.195–212.
9.
GoodwinCGoodwinMH (1996) Seeing as situated activity: Formulating planes. In: MiddletonDEngeströmY (eds) Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.61–95.
10.
HayanoK (2011) Claiming epistemic primacy: Yo-marked assessments in Japanese. In: StiversTMondadaMSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.58–81.
11.
HeritageJ (2011) Territories of knowledge, territories of experience: Empathic moments in interaction. In: StiversTMondadaLSteensigJ (eds) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.159–183.
12.
HeritageJ (2012a) Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 1–29.
13.
HeritageJ (2012b) The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction45: 30–52.
14.
HeritageJRaymondG (2005) The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly68(1): 15–38.
15.
JeffersonG (1979) A technique for inviting laughter and its subsequent acceptance/declination. In: PsathasG (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington, pp.79–96.
16.
JeffersonG (1984) On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In: Atkinson AM and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.346–369.
17.
JeffersonG (1980/1981) The abominable ‘ne?’ An exploration of post-response pursuit response. Manchester Sociology Occasional6: 1–82.
18.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.13–23.
19.
KamioA (1997) Territory of Information. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
20.
KuroshimaSIwataN. (2016) On displaying empathy: Dilemma, category, and experience. Research on Language and Social Interaction49(2): 92–110.
21.
KushidaS (2015) Using names for referring without claiming shared knowledge: Name-quoting descriptors in Japanese. Research on Language and Social Interaction48(2): 230–251.
22.
LevinsonSC (2013) Action formation and ascription. In: SidnellJStiversT (eds) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.103–130.
23.
Merleau-PontyM (1989) Le primat de la perception et ses conséquences philosophiques. Grenoble: Cynara.
24.
NishizakaA (2000) Seeing what one sees: Perception, emotion and activity. Mind, Culture and Activity7: 105–123.
25.
NishizakaA (2003) Imagination in action. Theory & Psychology13: 177–207.
26.
NishizakaA (2006) What to learn: The embodied structure of the environment. Research on Language and Social Interaction39(2): 119–154.
27.
NishizakaA (2017) The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity24(2): 110–128.
28.
NishizakaA (2021) Partitioning a population in agreement and disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 172: 225–238.
29.
PomerantzA (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shaped. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.57–101.
30.
PomerantzA (1988) Offering a candidate answer: An information seeking strategy. Communications Monographs55(4): 360–373.
31.
RaymondGHeritageJ (2006) The epistemics of social relations: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society35(5): 677–705.
32.
RobinsonJD (2013) Epistemics, action formation, and other-initiation of repair: The case of partial questioning repeats. In: SidnellJHayashiMRaymondG (eds) Conversational Repair and Human Understanding. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp.261–292.
33.
SacksH (1992) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.
34.
SharrockWCoulterJ (1998). On what we can see. Theory & Psychology8(2): 147–146.
35.
SchegloffEA (1987) Recycled turn beginnings. In: ButtonGLeeJRE (eds) Talk and Social Organization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp.70–85.
36.
SchegloffEA (1996) Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. American Journal of Sociology102(1): 161–216.
37.
SchegloffEA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SchegloffEAJeffersonGSacksH (1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language53(2): 361–382.
39.
StiversTRossanoF (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction43(1): 3–31.
40.
StevanovicMPeräkyläA (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: The right to announce, propose, and decide. Research on Language & Social Interaction45(3): 297–321.
41.
StevanovicMPeräkyläA (2014) Three orders in the organization of human action: On the interface between knowledge, power, and emotion in interaction and social relations. Language in Society43(2): 185–207.
42.
SunagaM (2018) Walking while noticing: How is interaction organized through the negotiation of concerns while inspecting a hiking course? In: 5th international conference on conversation analysis, Loughborough University, UK, 11–15 July 2018.
43.
WittgensteinL (1969) On Certainty. New York: Harper and Row.
