This paper focuses on interdisciplinary trials as a multiparty and multiactivity setting in which different professions are needed for students with mobility disabilities to try out robot-assisted gait training. Through an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approach to multimodal interaction analysis, we investigate how a research team collaborates with the employees at a sports high school to get students who are wheelchair users to walk. The paper provides an analysis of the professionals’ employment of multimodal resources for managing deontic rights when organizing interdisciplinary trials. It examines how the professionals initiate and negotiate their own and others’ actions necessary for preparing the student for walking. Based on video recordings, the paper focuses on the professionals’ deontic claims concerning co-participants’ actions and analyzes their temporal and spatial contingencies. Building on prior research on deontics, this paper contributes to our understanding of the interactive accomplishment of deontic authority and its sensitivity to contextual features.
AuerP (2021) Turn-allocation and gaze: a multimodal revision of the “current-speaker-selects-next” rule of the turn-taking system of conversation analysis. Discourse Studies23(2): 117–140.
2.
CaffiC (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics31(7): 881–909.
3.
CaffiC (2007) Mitigation, Studies in Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
4.
ChannonAFoulkesPWalkerT (2018) But what is the reason why you know such things?’ Question and response patterns in the LADO interview. Journal of Pragmatics129: 154–172.
5.
CliftonJVan De MieroopDSehgalP, et al. (2018) The multimodal enactment of deontic and epistemic authority in Indian meetings. Pragmatics28(3): 333–360.
6.
CravenAPotterJ (2010) Directives: Entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies12(4): 419–442.
7.
CullyACluneJTaraporeD, et al. (2015) Robots that can adapt like animals. Nature521: 503–507.
8.
De StefaniE (2010) Reference as an interactively and multimodally accomplished practice: Organizing spatial reorientation in guided tours. In: PettorinoMGianniniAChiaraI, et al. (eds), Spoken Communication. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 137–170.
9.
De StefaniEGazinA-D (2014) Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of action. Journal of Pragmatics65: 63–79.
10.
DeppermannA (2013) Conversation Analytic Studies of Multimodal Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
11.
DeppermannA (2020) Lean syntax: How argument structure is adapted to its instructive, material, and temporal ecology. Linguistische Berichte263: 255–294.
12.
DrewPKendrickK (2018) Searching for Trouble: Recruiting Assistance through embodied action. Social Interaction. Video-based Studies of Human Sociality, pp. 1–15.
13.
FrickMPalolaE (2022) Deontic autonomy in family interaction: directive actions and the multimodal organization of going to the bathroom. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality5(1).
14.
GardnerR (2007) The right connections: acknowledging epistemic progression in talk. Language in Society36(3): 319–341.
15.
GoffmanE (1961) Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
16.
GoffmanE (1963) Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: Free Press.
17.
GoffmanE (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
18.
GoodwinC (1979) The interactive construction of a sentence in natural conversation. In: Psathas, Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers, pp. 97–121.
19.
GoodwinC (1981) Converational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. London: Academic Press.
20.
GoodwinC (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32(10): 1489–1522.
21.
GoodwinC (2003) The body in action. In: CouplandJGwynR (eds), Discourse. the Body and Identity. New York: Palgrave/Macmillan, pp. 19–42.
22.
GoodwinCGoodwinMH (2004) Participation. In: DurantiA (ed), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 222–243.
23.
GoodwinMH (2006) Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text and Talk26(4–5): 515–543.
24.
GoodwinMH (2021) The interactive construction of a hug sequence. In: CekaiteAMondadaL (eds), Touch in Social Interaction. Touch, Language, and Body. London: Routledge, pp. 27–53.
25.
HaddingtonP (2012) Movement in Action: Initiating Social Navigation in Cars. Semiotica, pp. 137–167.
26.
HeinemannTSteensigJ (2017) Three imperative action formats in Danish talk-in-interaction. In: SorjonenLRM-LCouper-KuhlenE (eds), Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139–173.
27.
HindmarshJHeathC (2000) Embodied reference: a study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics32: 1855–1878.
28.
KendonA (1990) Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
KendrickKHDrewP (2014) The putative preference for offers over requests. In: DrewPCouper-KuhlenE (eds), Requesting in social interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–114.
30.
KendrickKHDrewP (2016) Recruitment: offers, Requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction49(1): 1–19., No.
31.
MagnussonS (2020) Constructing young citizens’ deontic authority in participatory democracy meetings. Discourse and Communication14(6): 600–618.
32.
MagnussonS (2021) Establishing jointness in proximal multiparty decision-making: The case of collaborative writing. Journal of Pragmatics181: 32–48.
33.
MagnussonS (2022) Boosting young citizens’ deontic status: Interactional allocation of rights-to-decide in participatory democracy meetings. Södertörn Doctoral Dissertations.
34.
MajlesiARPlejertC (2018) Embodiment in tests of cognitive functioning: A study of interpreter-mediated dementia evaluation. Dementia17(2): 138–163.
35.
MaynardDWTurowetzJ (2017) Doing Testing: How Concrete Competence can Facilitate or Inhibit Performances of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Qualitative Sociology40: 467–491.
36.
MaynardDWTurowetzJ (2022) Autistic Intelligence: Interaction, Individuality, and the Challenges of Diagnosis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
MondadaL (2009) Emergent focused interactions in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics41(10): 1977–1997.
38.
MondadaL (2011) The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Social Semiotics21(2): 283–308.
39.
MondadaL (2012) Talking and driving: Multiactivity in the car. Semiotica191: 223–256.
40.
MondadaL (2013) Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. In: AuerPHilpertMStukenbrockA, et al. (eds), Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional and Cognitive Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 247–275.
41.
MondadaL (2016a) Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics20(3): 336–366.
42.
MondadaL (2016b) Multimodal resources and the organization of social interaction. In: RocciADe SaussureL (eds), Handbooks of Communication Science. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 328–350.
43.
MyrbergKHydénL-CSamuelssonC (2018) Different approaches in aphasia assessments: A comparison between test and everyday conversations. Aphasiology32(4): 417–435.
44.
NanouriKTseliouEAbakoumkinG, et al. (2022) ‘Who decided this?’: negotiating epistemic and deontic authority in systemic family therapy training. Discourse Studies24(1): 94–114.
45.
PomerantzA (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: AtkinsonJMHeritageJ (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.
46.
RaymondCWWhiteAE (2022) On the recognitionality of references to time in social interaction. Language and Communication83: 1–15.
47.
RobertsF (2002). Qualitative differences among cancer clinical trial explanations. Social Science and Medicine55: 1947–1955.
48.
RossanoF (2013) Gaze in conversation. In: SidnellJStiversT (eds), The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 308–329.
49.
SacksHSchegloffEJeffersonG (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language50(4): 696–735.
50.
SchegloffEA (2007) Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51.
SeurenLMHuiskesM (2017) Confirmation or Elaboration: What Do Yes/No Declaratives Want?Research on Language and Social Interaction, pp. 188–205.
52.
SheridanT (2016) Human-robot interaction: status and challenges. Human Factors58(4): 525–532.
53.
SørensenARasmussenG (2018) RoBody Interaction - A new approach at Kinesthetic Human Robot Interaction. Proceedings of the 27th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.
54.
StevanovicM (2013) Constructing a proposal as a thought: a way to manage problems in the initiation of joint decision-making in Finnish workplace interaction. Pragmatics23(3): 519–544.
55.
StevanovicM (2015) Displays of uncertainty and proximal deontic claims: the case of proposal sequences. Journal of Pragmatics78: 84–97.
56.
StevanovicM (2018) Social deontics: a nano-level approach to human power play. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior48(3): 369–389.
57.
StevanovicM (2021) Deontic authority and the maintenance of lay and expert identities during joint decision making: Balancing resistance and compliance. Discourse Studies23(5): 670–689.
58.
StevanovicMMonzoniC (2016) On the hierarchy of interactional resources: Embodied and verbal behavior in the management of joint activities with material objects. Journal of Pragmatics103: 15–32.
59.
StevanovicMPeräkyläA (2012) Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose and decide. Research on Language and Social Interaction45(3): 297–321.
60.
StevanovicMSvennevigJ (2015) Introduction: epistemics and deontics in conversational directives. Journal of Pragmatics78: 1–6.
61.
StevanovicMWeisteEUusitaloL-L (2022) Challenges of client participation in the co-development of social and health care services: imbalances of control over action and the management of the interactional agenda. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health: 1–14.
62.
StiversTRossanoF (2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction43(1): 3–31.
63.
StreeckJ (2009) Gesturecraft: The Manu-Facture of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
64.
StukenbrockA (2014) Take the words out of my mouth: verbal instructions as embodied practices. Journal of Pragmatics65: 80–102.
65.
Van De MieroopD (2020) A deontic perspective on the collaborative, multimodal accomplishment of leadership. Leadership16(5): 592–619.
66.
WadeJDonovanJLLaneJA, et al. (2009) It's not just what you say, it's also how you say it: Opening the 'black box' of informed consent appointments in randomized controlled trials. Social Science and Medicine68(11): 2018–2028.
67.
WeatherallAEdmondsDM (2018) Speakers formulating their talk as interruptive. Journal of Pragmatics123: 11–23.
