Cover not available
Part of
New Perspectives in Interactional Linguistic Research
Edited by Margret Selting and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten
[Studies in Language and Social Interaction 36] 2024
► pp. 132–160

Introducing the “Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction” (PECII)

A novel resource for exploring cross-situational and cross-linguistic variability in social interaction

ORCID logo | Leibniz-Institute for the German LanguageMannheim
 | Leibniz-Institute for the German LanguageMannheim
 | Leibniz-Institute for the German LanguageMannheim
 | University of Basel
 | Leibniz-Institute for the German LanguageMannheim
 | University of California Los Angeles
 | University of Helsinki
 | Kazimierz Wielki University in Bydgoszcz
 | Leibniz-Institute for the German LanguageMannheim
This article introduces the Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction (PECII), a multi-language video-corpus of social interactions in a range of informal settings and activity-contexts. After describing the basic motivation for its compilation, the design principles that underlie its composition and the data it contains, we illustrate PECII’s usefulness for comparative Interactional Linguistic (IL) and Conversation Analytic (CA) research. We do this by offering an analytic sketch of the practices people use to initiate turns that interfere with and seek to rectify another’s (problematic) behavior, focusing on their variability across languages and settings/activity-contexts. By maximizing the comparability of interactional data, PECII not only promotes the enhancement of cross-linguistic research in IL, it also opens up new avenues for exploring “cross-situational” variability (so-called “situation design”).
Keywords: Interactional Linguistics, corpus, informal interaction, European languages, cross-linguistic, comparison, activity, situation design, intervention, turn-initial elements
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Parallel European Corpus of Informal Interaction (PECII): Conceptual origins, design principles, and composition
  • 3.Using PECII: An exemplifying analytic sketch
    • 3.1Sketching the analytic domain and locating a target phenomenon: Interventions and intervention-initiation techniques
    • 3.2Cross-situational comparison in a given language
    • 3.3Cross-linguistic comparison
  • 4.Summary
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 26 August 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.36.05kut
References (73)
References
Arminen, Ilkka. 2009. “On Comparative Methodology in Studies of Social Interaction.” In Talk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. by Markku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 48–69. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society (SKS).Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1957. “I. – A Plea for Excuses: The Presidential Address.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 57 (1): 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baranova, Julija, and Mark Dingemanse. 2016. “Reasons for Requests.” Discourse Studies 18 (6): 641–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma. 2015. “Indexing Epistemic Access through Different Confirmation Formats: Uses of Responsive (das) stimmt in German Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 87: 251–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma, Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, and Peter Golato. 2020. “Mobilizing Others: An Introduction.” In Mobilizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities, ed. by Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm, Emma Betz, and Peter Golato, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caillois, Roger. 2001. Man, Play, and Games. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2009. First Language Acquisition. 2nd ed. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2013. “Agency in Response: The Role of Prefatory Address Terms.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 290–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca, and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2018. “Actions in Practice: On Details in Collections.” Discourse Studies 20 (1): 90–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Dagmar Barth-Weingarten. 2011. “A System for Transcribing Talk-in-Interaction: GAT 2 (Translated and Adapted for English).” Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 12: 1–51.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Margret Selting. 2001. “Introducing Interactional Linguistics.” In Studies in Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Margret Selting and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth, and Marget Selting. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: Studying Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craven, Alexandra, and Jonathan Potter. 2010. “Directives: Entitlement and Contingency in Action.” Discourse Studies 12 (4): 419–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2021. “Social Actions.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Sociopragmatics, ed. by Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár, and Marina Terkourafi, 1st ed., 69–94. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Seán G. Roberts, Julija Baranova, Joe Blythe, Paul Drew, Simeon Floyd, Rosa S. Gisladottir, et al. 2015. “Universal Principles in the Repair of Communication Problems.” PLOS ONE 10 (9): e0136100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Droste, Pepe. 2020. “Alternativen namentlicher Anrede als Ressourcen sozialen Handelns: Ein Fall für die Interaktionale Onomastik.” Namenkundliche Informationen 112: 143–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, Maria. 1997. “Schisming: The Collaborative Transformation From a Single Conversation to Multiple Conversations.” Research on Language & Social Interaction 30 (1): 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emerson, Robert M., and Sheldon L. Messinger. 1977. “The Micro-Politics of Trouble.” Social Problems 25 (2): 121–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon. 2021. “Conversation and Culture.” Annual Review of Anthropology 50 (1): 14.1–14.22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Floyd, Simeon, Giovanni Rossi, and Nick J. Enfield. 2020. Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Charles Goodwin. 2012. “Car Talk: Integrating Texts, Bodies, and Changing Landscapes.” Semiotica 191: 257–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Asta Cekaite. 2013. “Calibration in Directive/Response Sequences in Family Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 122–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Heather Loyd. 2020. “The Face of Noncompliance in Family Interaction.” Text & Talk 40 (5): 573–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa, and Jonathan Potter. 2011. “Threats: Power, Family Mealtimes, and Social Influence.” British Journal of Social Psychology 50 (1): 99–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John. 2013. “Turn-Initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics 57: 331–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen (eds.). 2018. Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles across Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoey, Elliott M., and Chase Wesley Raymond. 2022. “Managing Conversation Analysis Data.” In The Open Handbook of Linguistic Data Management, ed. by Andrea L. Berez-Kroeker, Bradley McDonnell, Eve Koller, and Lauren B. Collister, 257–266. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstetter, Emily. 2021. “Achieving Preallocation: Turn Transition Practices in Board Games.” Discourse Processes 58 (2): 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1972. “Side Sequences.” In Studies in Social Interaction, ed. by David Sudnow, 294–338. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
. 1979. “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and Its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination.” In Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 79–96. New York, London: Irvington.Google Scholar
Keel, Sara. 2016. Socialization: Parent-Child Interaction in Everyday Life. Directions in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. London / New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., and Paul Drew. 2016. “Recruitment: Offers, Requests, and the Organization of Assistance in Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49 (1): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra. 2012. “Compliance, Resistance and Incipient Compliance When Responding to Directives.” Discourse Studies 14 (6): 711–730. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Alexandra, and Kobin H. Kendrick. 2016. “Imperative Directives: Orientations to Accountability.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49 (3): 272–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, Mardi. 2013. “Availability as a Trouble Source in Directive-Response Sequences.” In Conversational Repair and Human Understanding, ed. by Geoffrey Raymond, Makoto Hayashi, and Jack Sidnell, 234–60. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kornfeld, Laurenz, and Giovanni Rossi. 2023. “Enforcing Rules During Play: Knowledge, Agency, and the Design of Instructions and Reminders.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 56 (1): 42–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küttner, Uwe-A., Anna Vatanen, and Jörg Zinken. 2022. “Invoking Rules in Everyday Family Interactions: A Method for Appealing to Practical Reason.” Human Studies 45: 793–823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. 2003. “Selecting next Speaker: The Context-Sensitive Operation of a Context-Free Organization.” Language in Society 32 (2): 177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H., and Tomoyo Takagi. 1999. “On the Place of Linguistic Resources in the Organization of Talk-in-Interaction: A Co-Investigation of English and Japanese Grammatical Practices.” Journal of Pragmatics 31 (1): 49–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Kenneth. 2013. More Studies in Ethnomethodology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. “Leipzig Glossing Rules,” last modified May 31, 2015. [URL]
Maynard, Douglas W., and Steven E. Clayman. 2003. “Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis.” In Handbook of Symbolic Interactionism, ed. by Larry T. Reynolds and Nancy J. Herman-Kinney, 173–202. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2009. “The Methodical Organization of Talking and Eating: Assessments in Dinner Conversations.” Food Quality and Preference 20 (8): 558–571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Talking and Driving: Multiactivity in the Car.” Semiotica 191: 223–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “The Multimodal Interactional Organization of Tasting: Practices of Tasting Cheese in Gourmet Shops.” Discourse Studies 20 (6): 743–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. “Multimodal Transcription,” last modified November 2019. [URL]
Ninio, Anat, and Catherine E. Snow. 1999. “The Development of Pragmatics: Learning to Use Language Appropriately.” In Handbook of Child Language Acquisition, ed. by William C. Ritchie and Tej K. Bhatia, 347–383. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan, and Alexa Hepburn. 2020. “Shaming Interrogatives: Admonishments, the Social Psychology of Emotion, and Discursive Practices of Behaviour Modification in Family Mealtimes.” British Journal of Social Psychology 59 (2): 347–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chase Wesley. 2022. “Suffixation and Sequentiality: Notes on the Study of Morphology in Interaction.” Interactional Linguistics 2 (1): 1–41.Google Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni. 2020. “Other-Repetition in Conversation across Languages: Bringing Prosody into Pragmatic Typology.” Language in Society 49 (4): 495–520. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rossi, Giovanni, Simeon Floyd, and Nick J. Enfield. 2020. “Recruitments and Pragmatic Typology.” In Getting Others to Do Things: A Pragmatic Typology of Recruitments, ed. by Simeon Floyd, Giovanni Rossi, Nick J. Enfield, Kobin H. Kendrick, Joe Blythe, Jörg Zinken, Julija Baranova, and Mark Dingemanse, 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist 70 (6): 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989. “Reflections on Language, Development, and the Interactional Character of Talk-in-Interaction.” In Interaction in Human Development, ed. by Marc H. Bornstein and Jerome S. Bruner, 139–153. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
1996. “Confirming Allusions: Toward an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 102 (1): 161–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. “On Complainability.” Social Problems 52 (4): 449–476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. “One Perspective on Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives.” In Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives, ed. by Jack Sidnell, 357–406. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Irene Koshik, Sally Jacoby, and David Olsher. 2002. “Conversation Analysis and Applied Linguistics.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22 (March): 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Marco F. H., Hannes Rakoczy, and Michael Tomasello. 2019. “Eighteen-Month-Old Infants Correct Non-Conforming Actions by Others.” Infancy 24 (4): 613–35. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2007. “Comparative Studies in Conversation Analysis.” Annual Review of Anthropology 36 (1): 229–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, ed. 2009. Conversation Analysis: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sterponi, Laura. 2003. “Account Episodes in Family Discourse: The Making of Morality in Everyday Interaction.” Discourse Studies 5 (1): 79–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Nick J. Enfield, Penelope Brown, Christina Englert, Makoto Hayashi, Trine Heinemann, Gertie Hoymann, et al.. 2009. “Universals and Cultural Variation in Turn-Taking in Conversation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (26): 10587–10592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vatanen, Anna. 2014. “Responding in Overlap: Agency, Epistemicity and Social Action in Conversation.” University of Helsinki. [URL]
Walker, Gareth. 2013. “Young Children’s Use of Laughter after Transgressions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (4): 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, Rodney D. 2008. “Comparative Sociology, Laic and Analytic: Some Critical Remarks on Comparison in Conversation Analysis.” Cahiers de Praxématique 50: 197–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiggins, Sally. 2002. “Talking with Your Mouth Full: Gustatory Mmms and the Embodiment of Pleasure.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 35 (3): 311–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. 1997. Interaction and the Development of Mind. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg. 2016. Requesting Responsibility: The Morality of Grammar in Polish and English Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, and Eva Ogiermann. 2013. “Responsibility and Action: Invariants and Diversity in Requests for Objects in British English and Polish Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (3): 256–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar