This article studies the middle-distance look of ratified unaddressed participants and the way in which it is sequentially organized in relation to the discursive conducts of current speaker. An analysis of naturally occurring video recorded discourse reveals that ratified unaddressed participants constitute themselves as non-recipients by employing middle-distance look. The article formulates a list of observations (missing in the literature) regarding the middle-distance look of ratified unaddressed participants. It raises questions which may generate knowledge on (a) the connection between middle-distance look and discursive ambiguity, (b) types of middle-distance look, (c) middle distance look as related to seating arrangements and group size.
AnderssonKKalmanH (2017) Strategies to handle the challenges of intimacy in night-time home care services. European Journal of Social Work20(2): 219–230.
2.
AuerPBauerA (2011) Multimodality in aphasic conversation: Why gestures sometimes do not help. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders2(2): 215–243.
3.
Bat-Zeev ShyldkrotHSheferH (2019) From addition to concession: Hebrew gam ‘also’. THÉLÈME: Revista Complutense de Estudios Franceses34(1): 29–46.
4.
BermanRA (1978) Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects.
5.
BlackL (2004) Differential participation in whole-class discussions and the construction of marginalised identities. The Journal of Educational Enquiry5(1): 34–54.
6.
ClaymanSE (2013) Turn-constructional units and the transition-relevance place. In: SidnellJStiversT (eds) The handbook of conversation analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp.150–166.
7.
Du BoisJW (2007) The stance triangle. In: EnglebretsonR (ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.139–182.
8.
EdelskyC (1981) Who’s got the floor?Language in Society10(3): 383–421.
9.
EdwardsD (2005) Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies7(1): 5–29.
10.
FordCEFoxBAThompsonSA (1996) Practices in the construction of turns: The ‘TCU’ revisited. Pragmatics6(3): 427–454.
11.
GlinertL (1989) The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
12.
GoffmanE (1979) Footing. Semiotica25: 1–30.
13.
GoodwinC (1980) Restarts, pauses, and the achievement of a state of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry50: 272–302.
14.
GoodwinC (1981) Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York, NY: Academic Press.
15.
GoodwinC (2000) Practices of seeing: Visual analysis: An ethnomethodological approach. In: Van LeeuwenTJewittC (eds) The Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: SAGE, pp.157–182.
GoodwinCGoodwinMH (2004) Participation. In: DurantiA (ed.) A Composition to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden: Blackwell, pp.222–244.
20.
GoodwinMH (1983) Searching for a word as an interactive activity. In: DeelyJNLenhartMD (eds) Semiotics. New York, NY: Plenum, pp.129–138.
21.
HeathC (1986) Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: University Press.
22.
HeritageJ (2004) Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In: SandersRFitchK (eds) Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp.103–146.
23.
HollerJKendrickKH (2015) Unaddressed participants’ gaze in multi-person interaction: Optimizing recipiency. Frontiers in Psychology6(98): 1–14.
24.
KendonA (1967) Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica26: 22–63.
25.
KidwellM (1997) Demonstrating recipiency: Knowledge displays as a resource for the unaddressed participant. Issues in Applied Linguistics8(2): 85–96.
26.
KidwellM (2006) ‘Calm down!’: The role of gaze in the interactional management of hysteria by the police. Discourse Studies8(6): 745–770.
27.
KleinkeCL (1986) Gaze and eye contact: A research review. Psychological Bulletin100(1): 78–100.
28.
MarianKSDoehlerSP (2022) Multimodal word-search trajectories in L2 interaction: The use of gesture and how it changes over time. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality5(1): 1–34. DOI: 10.7146/si.v5i2.130867
29.
MaschlerY (2003) The discourse marker nu: Israeli Hebrew impatience in interaction. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse23(1): 89–128.
30.
MaschlerYDori-HacohenG (2016) Hebrew nu: Grammaticization of a borrowed particle from synchronic and diachronic perspectives. In: AuerPMaschlerY (eds) Nu/Nå: A Family of Discourse Markers Across the Languages of Europe and Beyond. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp.162–212.
31.
McGregorG (1983) Listeners’ comments on conversation. Language & Communication3(3): 271–304.
32.
MilesMB (1979) Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly24(4): 590–601.
33.
MizelO (2021) ‘I lost my identity in the halls of academia’: Arab students on the use of Arabic in Israeli higher education. Issues in Educational Research31(3): 930–951.
34.
MondadaL (2007) Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies9(2): 194–225.
35.
NevileM (2010) Looking for action: Talk and gaze home position in the airline cockpit. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics33(1): 3.1–3.21.
36.
RobinsonDStiversT (2001) Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient encounters. From history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research27(2): 253–298.
37.
RoseMRDiamondSSPowersDA (2020) Inequality in talk and group size effects: An analysis of measures. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations23(5): 778–798.
38.
RuusuvuoriJ (2001) Looking means listening: Coordinating displays of engagement in doctor–patient interaction. Social Science & Medicine52: 1093–1108.
39.
SacksHSchegloffEAJeffersonG (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50: 696–735.
40.
SchegloffEA (1998) Reflections on studying prosody in talk-in-interaction. Language and Speech41: 235–263.
41.
SchegloffEA (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society29(1): 1–63.
42.
SchegloffEAKoshikIJacobyS, et al. (2002) Conversation analysis and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics22: 3–31.
43.
SidnellJ (2006) Coordinating talk, gesture, and gaze in reenactments. Research on Language and Social Interaction39(4): 377–409.
44.
StiversT (2001) Negotiating who presents the problem: Next speaker selection in pediatric encounters. Journal of Communication51(2): 252–282.
45.
StreeckJ (1995) On projection. In: GoodyEN (ed.) Social Intelligence and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp.87–110.
46.
ThomasEJFinkCF (1963) Effects of group size. Psychological Bulletin60(4): 371–384.
47.
Van DijkTA (1997) The study of discourse. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse as Structure and Process. London: SAGE, pp.1–34.
48.
Von CranachMEllgringJH (1973) Problems in the recognition of gaze direction. In: Von CranachMVineI (eds) Social Communication and Movement: Studies of Interaction and Expression in Man and Chimpanzee. London: Academic Press, pp.419–443.
49.
VranjesJBrôneG (2020) Eye-tracking in interpreter-mediated talk: From research to practice. In: SalaetsHBrôneG (eds) Linking up with Video: Perspectives on Interpreting Practice and Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.203–233.
50.
YinRK (1981) The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly26(1): 58–65.
