Members Forum Newsletter #8 Feb 2022

We hope everyone in the EMCA community was just as excited as we were when the announcement came out for the sixth International Conference on Conversation Analysis, to be held in Brisbane, Australia, in July 2023. Like the Olympic Games, it had to be delayed for a year because of COVID, but we can finally start looking forward to the central conference of our community. The call for panels is currently open with a submission deadline on March 4th.

Continue Reading →

Trajectories of Love: Embodied Negotiations over Physical Togetherness in Romantic Relationships

By Julia Katila, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Tampere University

Human beings are prone to showing affection through touch. For instance, caregivers gently touching their offspring is perhaps the most primordial way, among the human species, to express and experience love and affection. Something similar takes place in adulthood between romantic partners: when close to one another, “lovers cannot help themselves from weaving their bodies together in various forms of intertwinement and embrace”, to use Maclaren’s (2014: 96) words.

Continue Reading →

Orientations to accountability through address forms: the case of Persian V-pronoun addressing an intimate co-interactant

By Reihaneh Afshari, PhD student at University of York

In social interaction, the address form has a lot to say about the speaker’s stance or the social action performed through a turn at talk (e.g., Butler, Danby, & Emmison, 2011; Clayman, 2010; Lerner, 2003; Rendle-Short, 2010). Jefferson (1973, p. 48) describes address forms as ‘relation-formulating’. In languages with a pronominal T-V (after tu and vos in Latin) distinction, this relation-building property is treated as so conventionalized that many sociolinguists dichotomize pronouns into “less formal T pronouns versus more formal V pronouns”, as Clyne et al. (2006, p. 284) report. Power, solidarity, and politeness are among factors reported to determine speaker’s selection of T versus V pronouns (Brown & Gilman, 1968; Brown & Levinson, 1987). Some recent studies question the theoretical assumptions underlying such dichotomies (see e.g., Clyne et al, 2006); nevertheless, to fill the gap, many of them still rely on similar macro-social constructs. For example, in her investigation of Persian, Nanbakhsh (2012) acknowledges that, contrary to the long-established belief, shomâ (second-person plural pronoun – V pronoun – in Persian) can be used to address an intimate coparticipant, but her findings are still based on macro constructs such as ‘power’ and ‘formality’.

Continue Reading →