control touch in caregiver-child interaction: embodied
TRANSCRIPT
1
Control touch in caregiver-child interaction:
Embodied organization in triadic mediation of peer conflict*
Matthew Burdelski
Osaka University
Graduate School of Letters
1-5 Machikaneyama, Toyonaka
560-8532 Japan
Asta Cekaite
Linköping University
Department of Thematic Studies
SE-581 83 Linköping Sweden
Abstract:
This chapter explores caregiver control touch in encouraging children to
comply with the normative rules of everyday social life. Based on linguistic
and ethnographic methods undertaken in a Japanese and Swedish preschool,
the analysis focuses on control touch in episodes where preschool teachers
in the two societies mediated in peer conflict (e.g., hitting, taking another’s
toy away). The analysis shows how teachers used control touch with other
communicative resources such as gaze, talk, and participation frameworks
in intervening in the conflict, which included engaging children in moral
* We would like to thank Lorenza Mondada for providing feedback on earlier versions of this chapter.
2
discourse (e.g., You musn’t do X). It also shows how they used control
touch in facilitating reparatory activity between the children involved. This
included arranging children’s bodies in an interactional space so as to
engage them in remedial work (e.g., Say sorry) within face-to-face
embodied formations. The cross-cultural findings suggest that control touch
in preschool settings is a potentially rich arena for exploring children’s
embodied socialization into moral and social accountability.
Bio notes:
Matthew Burdelski is Professor of Applied Japanese Linguistics at Osaka
University. His research focuses on language socialization and conversation
analysis of young children in homes and preschools. A co-edited volume
(with Kathryn Howard) titled, Language socialization in classrooms:
Culture, interaction and language development (Cambridge University
Press) will be published in March, 2020.
Asta Cekaite’s research involves an interdisciplinary approach to language,
culture, and social interaction. Specific foci include social perspectives on
embodiment, touch, emotion and moral socialization. Empirical fields cover
adult-child and children’s peer group interactions in educational settings and
families. She has co-authored Embodied family choreography with Marjorie
H. Goodwin (Routledge, 2018).
Running head: Control touch in caregiver-child interaction
3
1. Introduction
Touch is a basic sensory perception, experienced from the first moments of
life, and essential to normative development and sociality (e.g., Merleau-
Ponty, 1964; Montagu, 1986 [1971]). Human-to-human touch is not only a
dialogic activity— “to touch another is to be touched back” (Elkiss and
Jerome, 2012, p. 517)—but also an inherently social and interactional
phenomenon, as it is embedded within social interaction (e.g., M.H.
Goodwin, 2017); deployed with and on different parts of the body (e.g.,
hands, legs, face); and performed in various ways (e.g., from light to
forceful, punctual to durative, patting to stroking, comforting to violating,
on skin or clothing). As a symbolic resource, touch is constitutive of
relationships in expressing affect, providing care, and exerting control over
others (e.g., Hertenstein and Weiss, 2011).
This chapter explores adults’ use of control touch (Cekaite, 2015,
2016) as part of an ecology of multimodal resources (e.g., C. Goodwin,
2000) in encouraging preschool children to comply with the normative rules
of everyday social life. Such caregiver-to-child touch entails tactile
operations on children’s bodies, designed to gain and sustain their displayed
attention, position them in spatial formations, and engage them in particular
social projects. We focus on control touch in episodes where teachers in
preschools in two societies (Sweden and Japan) mediated in children’s peer
conflict (e.g., Corsaro and Rizzo, 1990; Danby and Theobald, 2012; M.H.
Goodwin, 1990). We show how they employed control touch in conjunction
with talk, gaze, and other resources to arrange children’s bodies into
participation frameworks (Goffman, 1981; see also C. Goodwin and M.H.
4
Goodwin, 2004) in ways that afforded, enabled, and transformed, as well as
constricted and limited, children’s engagement in interaction. Through these
frameworks, we show how teachers used touch and talk to indirectly ascribe
responsibility and blame, and in some cases encourage children to negotiate
the interpretation of the conflict. In considering control touch as lodged
within courses of multimodal social action—laminated on talk and
constitutive of social action on its own—and probing children’s responses,
we argue that teachers’ use of control touch in mediating in peer conflict is
tied to educational goals of the institution, such as encouraging children to
get along with others. Our findings suggest that control touch is a rich arena
for exploring children’s embodied socialization into moral and social
accountability.
2. Background: Adult to child control touch in situated interaction
Over the last several years, an increasing amount of research on naturally
occurring interaction has shown how adults mobilize embodied resources
such as touch in inculcating children into everyday social life within the
family (e.g., Burdelski, 2011, 2015; Cekaite, 2010, 2015, 2016; de León,
1998; M.H. Goodwin, 2017; M.H. Goodwin and Cekaite, 2018) and
preschool (e.g., Ben-Ari, 1997; Bergnehr and Cekaite, 2017; Burdelski,
2010; Burke and Duncan, 2015; Cekaite, 2010; Cekaite and Holm Kvist,
2017; Hayashi and Tobin, 2015). Children’s earliest and recurrent
experiences with touch occur among family members in which human-to-
human tactile acts are used for gaining attention, displaying affection,
controlling, and caring. Being a child ostensibly entails being touched and
5
touching others, though the ways touch is manifested in interaction are
situationally variable. Recently, several studies have discussed control touch
(M.H. Goodwin and Cekaite, 2018) and haptic control acts (Cekaite, 2015,
2016), as tactile behaviors deployed to encourage a child to do something
(e.g., carry out an action or activity). Although a number of other studies
have used various terms, control touch is often implied in them through
action labels, such as pushing, holding, pulling, or gripping. A typical
situation of control touch is to engage children in routine activities for
which they have the rights and responsibilities to accomplish, such as
eating, brushing teeth, or doing homework. For example, in their study of
family interaction in Sweden and the United States, M.H. Goodwin and
Cekaite (2018) observed that parents used control touch along with verbal
directives, or “utterances designed to get someone else to do something”
(M.H. Goodwin, 1990, p. 65), which took diverse grammatical shapes from
indirect (such as hints) to direct (such as imperatives) (e.g., Cekaite, 2015).
They found that sequentially a parent’s directive was often accompanied or
followed by control touch, especially when the child displayed resistance to
complying with verbal or other embodied (e.g., pointing) directives.
Similarly, Burdelski (2015) observed how Japanese parents used control
touch as part of directive sequences aimed at urging children to perform a
next action (e.g., picking up a book that had fallen to the floor). In these
ways, adults use control touch that is sequentially coordinated with vocal,
other embodied, and material resources to initiate and engage children in
specific tasks and activities in and around the home.
6
Another situation of control touch is to orient children towards others
in the social world and engage them in social interaction. In a Samoan
community, Ochs, Solomon and Sterponi (2005) observed how caregivers
use tactile means to organize children into corporeal niches (e.g., infant held
upright, laying down or otherwise on back, hip, in arms, on lap, in front of
chest, etc.) (p. 554). In what they refer to as corporeal alignment, in which a
child is nested in the caregiver’s lap or set side-by-side with a caregiver, the
child is turned outward (i.e., towards others in the social world) in
encouraging him or her to attend to what other participants are doing. In a
Tzotzil Mayan community, de León (1998) showed that haptic control acts
were often accompanied by prompting (Schieffelin, 1990) children what to
say to others or by using reported speech to address others for the pre-verbal
child. De León argues that reported speech, in particular, positioned children
as embedded speakers within social activities, and was an important means
through which children emerged as speakers. In Japan, Burdelski (2011)
also observed the use of control touch for social orientation and social
action. Japanese caregivers touched young children on the upper back or
neck and then pressed firmly to encourage them to bow to others as an
expression of thanks. This kind of touch co-occurred with prompting the
child what to say or speaking for the child (Burdelski, 2011). Thus, as
Japanese children’s bodies were tactically manipulated, children were
ascribed as authors (Goffman, 1981) of utterances who use language in
socially appropriate ways while learning specific techniques of the body
(Mauss, 1973 [1935]). In the present study, we are concerned with the ways
7
that caregivers employ control touch to orient children towards the social
world of the preschool involving actions with peers.
In many societies, preschool is a central setting of children’s early
sociality and learning to become a competent member of a social group.
Children’s tactile experiences include diverse forms of teachers’ touch. In
their analysis of adult-to-child touch in Swedish preschools, Bergnehr and
Cekaite (2017) identified various categories: 1) control touch, 2)
affectionate touch, 3) affectionate control touch, 4) assisting touch and 5)
educative touch. According to them, teachers used control touch to “direct
the child’s behavior, bodily movements, or attention, or to discipline the
child. The haptic forms used involve holding, steering, taps, pats, lifting,
carrying, and other uses of the hands to direct the recipient’s bodily
movements, stabilize his/her bodily actions or direct his/her attention” (p.
7). They also found that control touch was combined with affectionate
touch, or what they called affectionate-control touch, which was deployed
to, “control – in a mitigated way – the child’s bodily position or orientation.
The haptic forms involve stroke on the arm, a half-embrace, or lifting the
child gently and putting the child in one’s lap to control the child’s bodily
conduct” (p. 7). Bergnehr and Cekaite also reported on the frequency of
touch in their data. They found that more than one-third of cases were
control touch (134 out of 322 tokens) and about one-fifth were affective-
control touch (67 out of 322 tokens). Their findings suggest that when
teachers touched children they did so more than 80% of the time to control
them. They relate these findings to the importance of touch in encouraging
children to be “moral and social beings” (p. 18)
8
Studies in other preschools have also observed teachers’ use of control
touch. In a comparative study of bodily conduct in New Zealand and
Japanese preschools, Burke and Duncan (2015, p. 63-68) argued that
teachers’ touch of children could be viewed within a frame of varying
cultural preferences and concerns. They found that in New Zealand teacher-
to-child “touch remains problematic” (p. 63) because of the societal concern
with the maintenance of interpersonal distance with children, and individual
teachers’ anxieties with being accused of inappropriate touching. However,
in the Japanese preschool, frequent teacher-to-child touch indexed the
importance of sukinshippu ‘skinship’ (nurtured in home activities such as
co-sleeping, co-bathing, and nursing), and was considered as not only
“desirable but [also] necessary for a child’s development” (p. 63). They also
observed that Japanese preschool teachers used touch as a primary resource
in disciplining children, even at times in the absence of talk. For instance,
during a group assembly when the students were expected to stand in line
and face forward while listening, a teacher responded to a child who was
fidgeting and poking another child by squatting down and putting her arm
around him to control him (without speaking to him). The researchers also
observed that Japanese preschool teachers’ “non-verbal means of
communication as the first method of disciplining a child” (Burke and
Duncan, 2015, p. 67) was contrastive to the New Zealand preschool where
teachers would typically address the child first (such as by issuing a
directive to stop the behavior). In another study of embodied conduct in a
Japanese preschool, Hayashi and Tobin (2015) observed teachers’ use of
control touch (pp. 32-34) in contexts of intervening in peer conflict. In
9
recounting a hair-pulling incident in which two boys each claimed the other
boy had started it, the authors described how a teacher placed herself
between the children and then engaged in holding by putting her arm around
the waist of one child, patting a child’s head, and gripping a child’s arm.
They claimed that such kinds of control touch were used to get children’s
attention, draw children close to the teacher, and emphasize a point. As
related above, studies in diverse societies and settings have described the
use of control touch, but few studies have detailed such touch within (and as
constitutive of) courses of multimodal social action, and its import for
children’s sociality in preschool.
3. Setting, data, and methods
The present study is exploratory, qualitative, and cross-cultural, drawing
upon data from audiovisual recordings of naturally occurring interaction in
two preschools, one in Sweden and one in Japan. In both countries, the
majority of children attend preschool (Sweden: about 95%; Japan: more
than 80%). In Sweden, the primary aim of the curriculum is to develop
children’s empathy and understanding of others’ perspectives, while
foregrounding their agency and independence in alignment with the child-
centeredness and democratic rights granted to children in Swedish society
(Cekaite, 2013). In Japan, emphasis is also placed on both socio-emotional
development, aslearning to develop empathy and get along with others is
viewed as crucial for being a member of a social group (Burdelski, 2010).
The data were collected as part of two larger studies (conducted
several years apart and not coordinated at the time of data collection)
10
focusing on teacher-child and peer interactions and socialization. Having
participated together in workshops, data sessions, and conference
presentations over several years, we decided to collaborate on topics of
common interest, especially on how children were encouraged to be moral
and social actors. In both sets of data, we observed that teachers’ touch was
part of a rich ecology of signs (M.H. Goodwin and Cekaite, 2018) for
encouraging this sociality, especially in cases when children breeched social
norms (as described below). Our analysis of control touch was carried out
both independently and collaboratively. After we each identified typical
examples (40 examples in each data set), we came together to view and
analyze the excerpts during data sessions. The examples in each corpus are
thus not exhaustive, as they do not represent the totality of control touch in
each corpus (60 hours in Sweden and 45 hours in Japan). Our aim was to
shed light on common practices, though at times we noted observable
differences across the two cultural contexts (e.g., occasions where a practice
occurred in one preschool but not [or rarely in] the other). Through this joint
effort, we came to focus on situations where teachers used control touch in
triadic mediation of peer conflict, as we observed that this was a common
situation of control touch in both preschools in ways that encouraged
children to be moral and social actors with peers. Children’s conflicts
included physical acts (e.g., pushing, hitting, or pinching), verbal acts (e.g.,
‘It’s mine!’), and acts involving objects (e.g., taking another’s toy away),
which were often made salient to teachers (and to us as analysts) through
children’s crying, shouting, and other response cries (Goffman, 1981) that
often performed an action of appeal (Schieffelin, 1990) for teacher
11
assistance. Teachers typically intervened in such conflicts and used various
kinds of haptic control acts that were sustained and transformed over an
episode of triadic mediation (i.e. from initiation to conclusion). In order to
create a common vocabulary of control touch across the two data sets, we
created a heuristic of descriptions (including symbols and terms) (see Table
1), which emerged from our collaborative analysis, and in many cases are
congruent with previous research on touch (e.g., Bergnehr and Cekaite,
2017; Hertenstein and Weiss, 2011; Tanner, 2017). Adapting Mondada’s
(2018) methods of transcribing multimodal features of interaction, we
include control touch symbols (e.g., T =tap, L = lift) in the transcripts to
show their position and timing in relation to talk and embodied actions.
Table 1. Letters in the transcripts indicating various kinds of teacher haptic control acts identified in the data.
Symbol Terms Description
T Tap: Taps, pats or places hand(s)/arm(s) on a child’s body part.
L Lift: Lifts child up or holds child in a lifting position with both hands.
S Set: Sets a child on the teacher’s knee, lap, or on the floor.
E Embrace: Embraces or holds a child body part with one or both arms.
P Pull: Pulls a child’s body part or clothes.
G Grip: Grips or holds onto child’s body part.
R Rotate Rotate, turn, or twist a child’s body from one angle to another.
Sh Shepherd: Shepherds child from one place to another by touching/tapping,
steering, or guiding a child’s body from behind or to the side.
C Carry: Carries a child from one place or another.
Pa Pat: Pats a child on the head, stomach, or other body part.
4. Teacher control touch in triadic mediation of peer conflict
12
This section examines how teachers in the two preschools used control touch
together with other semiotic resources in episodes of triadic mediation of peer
conflict, or post-conflict activity. The sequential unfolding of this mediation
can be described as two heuristic activities or phases: (1) INTERVENTION
PHASE (Section 4.1): teacher uses control touch and talk in engaging one or
both children in moral discourse (below) and/or in investigating what
happened; (2) REPARATORY PHASE (Section 4.2): teacher uses control touch
in engaging children in a resolution of the conflict. Although these activities
were useful to us in interpreting the data, they were not always discrete
phases; for instance, explicit moral discourse (e.g., “…is no good”; “You do
not…”) could be also embedded within conflict resolution, and even conflict
resolution itself is a kind of (implicit) moral discourse. Our analysis follows
this heuristic, and attends to the qualitative aspects of control touches (e.g.,
light to heavy, punctual to durative), and their position within courses of
multimodal action. It elucidates ways that teachers used control touch to
engage and sustain children’s participation in operative frameworks of
attention (M.H. Goodwin and Cekaite, 2013) and address children’s potential
or displayed resistance to carrying out a proposed action (Section 4.3).
4.1 Intervening in peer conflict
In this section, we examine teacher’s use of control touch in intervening in
children’s peer conflict through which they engaged children in moral
discourse; due to space, here we will not discuss the use of touch in
investigating what happened.
13
In intervening in peer conflict, teachers often used control touch to
separate the children in conflict and engage one or both children in explicit
moral discourse, such as by reprimanding or negatively assessing children’s
actions, or reminding them of preschool social norms. This discourse invited
the addressed child to attend to and reflect upon a prior untoward act. In many
cases, the child displayed attentive listening by responding non-verbally.
Teachers’ use of control touch together with verbal language contributed to
the ascription of responsibility and blame, and of particular membership
categories (Sacks, 1992) terms, namely offender and victim within the peer
conflict. It is important to note that teachers in both preschools did not
explicitly assign responsibility or blame to children, or label them as offender
or victim. Rather, these categories were evoked and emerged through the use
of talk and touch within the intervention phase and, more broadly, episodes of
mediated conflict management. As we will show, teachers employed either
dyadic touch formations (i.e., teacher touched only one child across an
episode) or triadic touch formations (i.e., teacher touched both children, but
usually in different ways) together with other semiotic resources in ways that
encouraged children’s moral and social accountability.
In Excerpt 1 from the Swedish preschool, a teacher uses a dyadic touch
formation. Just prior to the excerpt, two girls (Iwone and Neah) had been
climbing onto and jumping from a pile of stackable blocks when they begin
physically competing over who will go next. When Iwone escalates the
conflict by hitting Neah on the cheek and pinching her, Neah starts crying,
which draws the intervention of a teacher who has ostensibly seen what has
happened. (In the transcripts, touch symbols are marked from beginning to
14
end with a vertical bar, e.g., |T----------|), and continuation of touch is marked
with an arrow, e.g., |S-----à; non-verbal actions other than touch are
described in parenthesis).
Excerpt 1 (It’s not okay to pinch others, Iwone: 2;5, Neah: 3) 01 TEA: du.
Listen. 02
fig
((approaches IWO from behind and kneels down))| #T----------------------------------------------| #fig.1-1
1-1. TEA touches IWO on her back. 03 TEA: L--------------------|
R--------------------| 04
fig
|du. (.) de är #inte okej att knipas. Listen. It’s not okay to pinch others. |S----------------------------------à |E----------------------------------à #fig.1-2
1-2. TEA sets IWO on his knee while embracing her. 05 IWO: ((slighly tilts heard to side)) 06 TEA: det e det inte
It’s really not. S------------------à E------------------à
15
Here, the teacher uses a series of control touches in conjunction with talk and
gaze in gaining Iwone’s attention and engaging her in moral discourse, which
ascribes culpability to her for acting in a morally sanctionable way. More
particularly, while approaching Iwone from behind, he issues a verbal
directive to “listen” (line 1), followed by lightly tapping (T) on Iwone’s back
(line 2; see Figure 1-1). He further engages in control touch to extract Iwone
from the site of the conflict and thereby separating the two children, by lifting
(L) her up and off the blocks and rotating (R) her body towards him (line 3).
He then sets (S) Iwone on his left knee in a side-by-side formation (Ochs,
Solomon and Sterponi, 2005) (line 4; see Figure 1-2), which orients Iwone’s
gaze to both the teacher and the peer (Neah). In this formation, the teacher
uses a half-embrace (E) (lines 3 and 4; see Figure 1-2), by activating one arm
to support and control Iwone’s body. This series of control touches are
laminated (i.e., overlapping with the talk and other resources such as gaze)
(C. Goodwin, 2017), which allows the teacher to sustain the embodied
formation as he engages Iwone in explicit moral discourse (lines 4 and 6).
This discourse includes a negative assessment (C. Goodwin and M.H.
Goodwin, 1992; Pomerantz, 1984) to convey a social rule (line 4: “It’s not ok
to pinch”). When Iwone tilts her head as a display of alignment (line 5), the
teacher repeats the assessment in a truncated form (line 6: “it’s really not”). In
these ways, a teacher intervened in a peer conflict by using control touch to
invite the child’s attention, remove her from the conflict situation, and engage
her in moral discourse that urged her to reflect upon her inappropriate
physical act. (The continuation of this excerpt will be examined in Section 4.2
in relation to the reparatory phase).
16
In addition to dyadic touch formations, teachers in both preschools used
triadic touch formations within the intervention phase. In these formations,
teachers at times applied touch to both children but in different ways (e.g.
controlling one child while comforting the other), as illustrated in Excerpt 2
from the Japanese preschool. Just prior to the excerpt, a girl (Mao) has come
up behind a boy (Anik), who was seated on the floor playing with a train, and
suddenly pushed him over. Having observed this unprovoked act of physical
aggression, a teacher rushed over to Anik to soothe him, and then quickly
pursued Mao who has escaped from the immediate scene. As we join the
episode, the teacher uses control touch to forcefully pull (P) on Mao’s arm to
bring her back to the site of the conflict (see Fig. 2-1). (Here, touch symbols
include a superscript with the child’s name [e.g., PMAO, PANIK] to indicate
which child the teacher’s touch is aimed.)
Excerpt 2 (You must not push, Mao: 2;5; Anik: 2;6) 01 TEA:
fig |#PMAO-----------------------------à |#fig.2-1
2-1. TEA pulls on MAO’s arm, as ANI stands on the left facing away. 02 TEA: |nande |oshita no ka na::?|
(I) wonder why (you) pushed (him). |PMAO-----------------------------à |PANIK---------------------à
03 |nande |oshita no? ima mitaini::. Why did (you) push (him)? Like just now. |PMAO---|GMAO-----------------------------à |GANIK-----------------------------------à
04 |nanimo shi|tenai deshoo Aniikucha::::n.| Anik hasn’t done anything, right? GMAO-------------------------------------| GANIK------------------------------------à
17
05 |oshitara |abunai desho::::? If (you) push it’s dangerous, right? |PMAO-------|GMAO-----------------------à GANIK-----------------------------------|
06 |kega shichau |Ankikuu:::::. Anik will get hurt. GMAO-------------------------à |EANIK-----------------------à
07 fig
|sakki mo sensei |yutta yo #ne:::. I also told (you) before, right. |GMAO-------------|PMAO—PMAO---PMAO----à |EANIK------------------------------à #fig.2-2
2-2. TEA forcefully pulls on MAO’s arm with her right hand, while embracing ANI (left) with her lef thand. 08 TEA: oshitara ikema|sen.
(You) must not push. HMAO-----------|PMAOà EANIK---------------à
In comparison to Excerpt 1 (see line 1: “du”/“listen”), here the teacher does
not preface her initiation of control touch with a verbal attention-getting
marker. Rather, before speaking, she approaches Mao, grabs her arm and
pulls (P) her near (see Fig. 2-1). Similar to prior observations of a Japanese
preschool that non-verbal communication is often the “first method of
disciplining a child” (Burke and Duncan, 2015, p. 67), here the teacher’s
control touch is sequentially designed to prepare the child’s body to display
attention to the teacher, as a preliminary to the moral discourse (lines 2-6).
During this discourse, the teacher transforms her control touch by gripping
18
(G) (Hayashi and Tobin, 2015, p. 32-33) on Mao’s wrist while gazing at her,
which invites Mao to reflect upon her act towards her peer.
As she initiates the moral discourse in which she employs control
touch to Mao, the teacher quickly shifts to a triadic touch formation to
incorporate Anik into the emerging multiparty framework. More
particularly, as she initiates an interrogative to Mao (line 2: “[I] wonder why
[you] pushed him?”), the teacher reaches her other hand towards Anik who
is turned away and pulls (P) him close in. This control touch transforms into
a visibly light grip (G) that keeps Anik in the triadic framework, as the
teacher continues her explicit moral discourse aimed at Mao. Similar to
Excerpt 1, here the teacher’s control touch adjusts Mao’s body to encourage
her to attend to both the teacher and the other child (Anik), which urges her
to reflect upon her prior untoward action towards her peer.
Although the teacher continues to use various forms of control touch
on Mao, she shifts to an affective-control touch (Bergnehr and Cekaite,
2017) on Anik, implicitly ascribing to him the category of victim. That is,
while continuing her moral discourse with Mao (line 5: “If [you] push, it’s
dangerous, right?”), she releases her grip on Anik’s arm and then embraces
(E) his lower torso with her left hand (see Figure 2-2). This touch is light
but nevertheless controlling, as it keeps Anik in the triadic framework;
however, Anik’s upper torso and head turn away from the teacher and Mao
(see Figure 2-2), representing a body torque (Schegloff, 1998), which
suggests his primary orientation to resume playing with the train. As she
affectionately embraces Anik, the teacher upgrades the force of her control
touch on Mao by pulling (P) on Mao’s wrist and arm in four short spurts
19
(lines 7 and 8). These pulls occur at interactionally relevant points in the
teacher’s talk, namely near the end of turn constructional units (bolded
portions as follows: line 7: “sakki mo sensei yutta yo ne::”/“Before too I
told [you], right?; line 8: “oshitara ikemasen”/“[You] must not push”), and
are thus interactionally deployed to “emphasize a point” (Hayashi and
Tobin, 2015, p. 34), by reminding Mao of the social rule that she has just
breached. By using touch with two children in asymmetrical ways, the
teacher underscores the severity of the child’s action and encourages her to
align with this moralizing discourse. (The continuation of this excerpt is
examined in Section 4.3 in relation to resistance).
This section has shown ways that teachers in the two preschools used
various kinds of control touch together with other semiotic resources in
intervening in children’s peer conflict that organized children into
frameworks through which they engaged one of the children in moral
discourse in holding the child morally accountable. As revealed, teachers
used control touch coordinated with multimodal resources in dyadic and
triadic formations, which were instrumental in organizing children’s
attentive embodied participation and in encouraging their sociality as moral
and social actors.
4.2 Engaging children in the reparatory phase: Establishing and
maintaining children’s bodily orientation
Following the intervention phase, teachers in both preschools used control
touch to engage children in a reparatory phase or ‘remedial work’ (e.g.,
apologizing) (Goffman, 1971), so as to reestablish interaction between the
children in restoring the social order and interpersonal relations. Here, we
20
examine how teachers used control touch to adjust and manipulate
children’s bodies (often the body of the ascribed offender) in achieving a
face-to-face ‘F-formation’ (Kendon, 1990) with the opponent (Björk-
Willén, 2018; Holm Kvist, 2018). This reparatory phase included the use of
control touch in prompting one or both children to use language to perform
specific social actions; here, we focus on expressions of apology (e.g.,
Björk-Willén, 2018; Burdelski, 2013). The first illustration is provided in
Excerpt 3, from the Swedish preschool, which is the immediate continuation
of Excerpt 1 examined earlier.
Excerpt 3 (Are you saying sorry, continuation of Ex. 1, Iwone: 2;5, Neah: 3) 07 TEA: |då får du säga förlåt till Neah.
In such case you have to say sorry to Neah. |S-----------------------------------------à |E-----------------------------------------à
08 09
IWO: TEA: fig
((looks towards TEA, slightly tilts head)) |o så får |ni |(.) hoppa en i |ta|#get And you have to jump one at a time |S--------|L---------------------------- |R--------------|S-------- |#fig.3-1
3-1. TEA orients IWO’s body towards NEA while setting her down on the floor in a standing position. 10 TEA: |säger du förlåt?
Are you saying sorry? |T-------------------|-------
11 IWO: |((nods))
fig ((#touches NEA))
#fig.3-2
21
3-2. As IWO (center) reaches towards NEA, TEA removes his light touch from IWO’S back. 12 TEA: ((stands up and moves away))
The teacher employs control touch by embracing Iwone who is seated on his
knee, while prompting her to say “sorry” to Neah (line 7). In the preschools
observed, prompting children was embedded within triadic frameworks in
which a child was expected to, in Goffman’s (1981) sense, animate an
utterance to a peer. Here, although Iwone does not verbally animate the
apology to Neah, she slightly nods in alignment towards the teacher, as a
possible “expression of a credible commitment to change” (Goffman, 1971,
p. 108). In response, the teacher briefly returns to the explicit moral
discourse (discussed in Section 4.1) by reminding Iwone of a preschool
social norm (line 9: “And you have to jump one at a time”). Simultaneously,
he engages in a series of control touches on the child’s body—these include
lifting (L) Iwone off his knee, rotating (R) her body towards Neah, and
setting (S) her down onto the floor—to position her in a face-to-face
formation with Neah who is sobbing (see Figure 3-1). While this series of
control touches arranges Iwone’s body outward (i.e., away from the teacher
and towards the victim) to carry out the remedial act of apology, it also
22
allows the teacher to observe and monitor the children’s remedial
interchange from the side.
Children responded to teachers’ prompts in various ways, such as by
animating the prompted expression, resisting (see Section 4.3), or producing
an action in their own way as in this excerpt. Here, as the teacher prompts
Iwone for a second (line 10: “Are you saying sorry?”), Iwone reaches out
and affectionately touches Neah’s back, which performs the remedial action
through a different modality. The teacher responds to this affectionate touch
by retracting his own control touch on Iwone’s back (see Figure 3-2), which
is followed by standing up and moving away from the girls (line 13). These
responses bring the teacher’s role in the reparatory phase (and the entire
episode of triadic mediation) to a close.
As suggested, during the reparatory phase, teachers used various kinds
of control touch along with prompts in encouraging one child what to say to
the other child. In the Japanese case, especially, prompts were frequently
used, and children were expected to animate an expression immediately.
When children did not do so, teachers continued to use control touch along
with repetitions of the prompt, as in Excerpt 4 from the Japanese preschool.
Prior to the excerpt, Mao has pushed Hina who has fallen to the floor and
then escaped from the scene. We join the episode just after the teacher has
‘shepherded’ (Cekaite, 2010) (i.e., used touch to propel the child’s
locomotion) Mao back to the scene of the conflict where Hina is crying.
(Here, PMAO+APRON indicates the teacher’s pulling of Mao’s apron strings).
Excerpt 4 (Say, sorry, Mao: 2;6, Hina: 3;1) 01 HIN: |.h onaka oshita.=|
(She) pushed (my) stomach.
23
| ((crying)) | 02 TEA: =|onaka oshita.
(She) pushed (your) stomach.| |PMAO+APRON-------------------|
03 HIN: n n n 04 TEA:
fig
|#gomen ne da yo ne.| It’s (I) am sorry, right. |GMAO---------------| #fig.4-1
4-1. TEA grips onto MAO’s forearm while prompting her to say sorry to HIN. 05 HIN: |((intense crying)) 06 TEA: |Hinachan |ni gomennasai tte. |
Say (I) am sorry to Hina. |PMAO+APRON------------------------à
07 MAO: | ((gazes at TEA)) | 08 |gomennasa:i.
(I) am sorry. |((gazing at HIN))
09 HIN: |((intense crying)) 10 TEA: |daijoobu? ((to HIN)) |
Are (you) alright? PMAO+APRON-----------------|
11 HIN: |((crying)) 12 TEA: |((finishes tying together MAO’s apron strings))
When Mao and the teacher arrive back at the scene of the conflict, Hina
reports to the teacher her version of the event (line 1), to which the teacher
indicates a receipt through repetition (Greer et al., 2009) (line 2). While
doing so, the teacher begins pulling tightly on Mao’s apron strings
(PMAO+APRON). This tactile operation on Mao’s play clothing does more than
perform a side task (i.e., tying the loose strings of the apron together), but
orients Mao’s body to the expected reparatory activity (i.e. apologizing to
Hina). The teacher then addresses Mao by prompting her to say “sorry” to
24
Hina (line 4). This prompt occurs with a slight shift in the teacher’s control
touch in which she suspends pulling Mao’s apron strings to gripping (G) her
arm, while gazing at her (see Figure 4-1). When Mao does not repeat the
apology, the teacher releases her grip on Mao’s arm and resumes tying
Mao’s apron strings. While doing so, she again prompts Mao what to say
(line 6: “Say [I] am sorry to Hina”). Thus, the teacher uses various forms of
control touch (on the child’s arm, on her clothes) to orient the child’s body
towards the victim while prompting her to apologize in engaging her in the
expected remedial work.
4.3 Responding to children’s embodied resistance
In engaging in triadic mediation of peer conflict, teachers in both preschools
used control touch to sustain children’s displays of attention and address one
or both child’s potential or displayed embodied resistance to the teacher’s
control touch deployed in ascribing responsibility and blame to one of the
children (Excerpt 5: one child resists) and in negotiating the interpretation of
the conflict (Excerpt 6: both children resist). First, in Excerpt 5 from the
Japanese preschool (continuation of Ex. 2 above), when prompting Mao to
say sorry to Anik for having pushed him, the teacher exerts mild control of
Mao’s body, by griping (GMAO) her arm and embracing (EMAO) her (line 9).
When Mao displays embodied resistance by attempting to break out of the
teacher’s embrace (line 10), the teacher responds by upgrading her control
touch to a forceful pull (PMAO) (line 9).
Excerpt 5 (Say sorry, continuation of Ex. 2, Mao: 2;5; Anik: 2;6) 09 TEA: Aniiku ni |gomen ne: |tte yutte mi|te.
Try to say sorry to Anik. GMAO-------|EMAO--------------------|PMAO--à
25
PANIK------|GANIK--------------------------à 10 MAO: |((moving out of TEA’s embrace)) 11 TEA:
fig
yu#ttemite kuda|#sai. Please try to say it. ((takes hand/arm off Anik)) PMAO------------|S--à GANIK-----------| #fig.5-1 #fig.5-2
5-1. TEA pulls forcefully on Mao’s arms.
5-2. TEA embraces MAO with one arm. 12 MAO: |maochan wakannai.=
[I] don’t understand. |SMAO-------------à |EMAO-------------à
13 TEA: ||=wakannakunai. (You) don’t not understand. ||SMAO----------------à ||EMAO----------------à ||((shaking head))
((3 turns skipped)) 17 TEA:
fig
|Aniikuchan #gomen ne wa:::? What about (saying) sorry (to) Anik? |SMAO-----------------------------------à |EMAO-----------------------------------à #fig.5-3
26
5-3. TEA makes a small adjustment in her control touch of MAO. 18 MAO:
gomen ne. Sorry. ((gazing toward ANI))
19 TEA: SMAO-------à EMAO-------à
20 moo yaccha ikenai yo:: Maocha::n. (You) must not do it (=push) anymore, Mao. SMAO-----------------------------à EMAO-----------------------------à
21 i::::i::? Okay? SMAO------à EMAO------à
22 MAO: ((nods twice))
In responding to Mao’s embodied resistance, the teacher upgrades her
control touch by forcefully pulling on Mao’s arm to draw her close to the
teacher (see Figure 5-1). She uses both hands for this effort, by freeing up
her other arm/hand with which she had been using to lightly embrace Anik.
The teacher pulls Mao into a seated position (SMAO) on her lap, followed by
embracing Mao (EMAO) with one arm that locks her into this position (see
Figure 5-2). This series of control actions are accompanied by prompting
Mao to apologize to Anik (line 11: “Please try to say it [=say sorry]”). When
Mao displays further resistance, this time verbally (line 13: “[I] don’t
understand” [presumably why she pushed Anik]), the teacher prompts Mao
again to apologize (line 17). While producing this prompt, the teacher
presses her embracing arm on Mao’s back and orients Mao’s body and gaze
towards Anik who is now standing facing towards Mao (see Figure 5-3).
27
This triadic participation framework, which has been arrived at through the
teacher’s series of control touches on both children, results in Mao
animating the apology expression to Anik (line 18). The teacher, however,
continues her control touch on Mao in upbraiding her for pushing Anik (line
20), as a return to the moral discourse begun earlier.
In the previous example, the teacher’s control touches in response to
the child’s resistance contributed to ascribing blame and responsibility to a
child, evoking the category of offender who needed to perform remedial
work with the victim (e.g., apologize). In this way, the child’s resistance
was also aimed at escaping not only the teacher’s haptic control in
encouraging her to perform social action (as remedial work) but also the
teacher’s indirect ascription of blame and responsibility.
As mentioned earlier, especially in the Swedish preschool, teachers
also at times engaged children in extended negotiation of the interpretation
of the conflict in which each child was urged to tell his or her side of the
event, where ascription of blame and responsibility was avoided (if it
occurred at all). Yet, even within these negotiations, children also on
occasion resisted participating in episodes of triadic mediation, leading at
times to teacher’s use of control touch. In Excerpt 6, the eruption of a
physical conflict between two girls at a play table has resulted in a teacher
shepherding them to an alternative space on a carpet, away from other
children. After the girls have each been given the opportunity to tell her side
of the event, the teacher attempts to close down the investigative phase (line
1) and initiates the reparatory phase in which she urges Maja to “say
something to Layal” (as an indirect prompt to Maja to apologize to Layal)
28
(line 2). Here, we observe how Layal tries to physically escape this remedial
work, and how the teacher responds using talk and control touch (In this
excerpt, a superscript [e.g., PFOOT] indicates control touches on Layal’s foot,
ankle, and leg).
Excerpt 6 (Then I’m getting hold of your legs, Layal: 4, Maja: 4) 01 TEA: |du. så e de.
Listen. So it is. ((to LAY)) 02 LAY: |((covering her face in her hands)) 03 TEA: vill du säga något till layal?
Do you want to say something to Layal? ((to MAJ)) 04 MAJ:
fig
((nods)) fast Layal ( ). sen slog hon mej. But Layal ( #[10 seconds unclear] ). Then she hit me. #fig.6-1
6-1. Maja (on left) telling her side of the story. 05 LAY: ((turns away with hands covering face)) 06 TEA: men (.) det handlar ju inte om det nu.
But (.) it’s not about this right now. 07 LAY: ((quickly “crawls” away from TEA and MAJ)) 08 TEA:
fig
|nä. Layal. (0.6) |#kom. (0.2)|. kom. No. Layal. Come. Come. |((reaches for L’s foot))|#fig.6-2
6-2. TEA reaches out for LAY’s foot. 09 LAY: ((stops moving, facing away with hands covering
face)) 10 TEA: kom laya:l (1.5) laya::l
Come Layal Layal 11 ((reaching towards LAY’s leg))
29
12 fig
|#kom. | Come. GFOOT—-|PFOOT--R---|PLEG--R-- #fig.6-3
6-3. TEA pulls on LAY’s foot with one hand. 13 TEA: |då tar jag dig i benen. |
Then I’m getting hold of your legs. |GLEGS------------------------------|
fig
#PLEGS-------------------------------- #fig.6-4
6-4. TEA pulls on LAY’s legs with both hands. 13 ((TEA tries to persuade both girls to apologize to each other;
LAY repeatedly refuses.))
Here, both girls resist the teacher’s attempt to initiate the reparatory phase,
with Layal doing so in a highly embodied way. More specifically, when
Maja verbally resists the teacher’s attempt to urge her to perform remedial
work (line 2) by re-opening the telling of her side of the conflict (line 4:
“…Then she hit me”; see Figure 6-1), Layal resists participating any further
in this episode of teacher-mediated conflict resolution. While covering her
face with her hands, she quickly crawls away on her feet and hands off the
carpeting and onto the wood flooring, escaping the physical proximity and
facing formation with Maja (line 6). The teacher responds to this embodied
display of resistance by directing Layal to “come” and then reaches for
30
Layal’s foot but is not able to touch it as Layal gets further away (line 7; see
Figure 6-2). When Layal ignores the teacher’s attempts to verbally coax her
back onto the carpeted area (line 10), the teacher approaches Layal and
initiates a series of control touches on her feet and legs. As shown in line 12,
these touches include using one hand to grip onto Layal’s foot (GFOOT) and
then to pull on her foot (PFOOT; see Figure 6-3) in order to rotate (R) Layal’s
body back towards the teacher and Maja on the carpet. When Layal further
displays embodied resistance, the teacher makes an announcement (line 13:
“Then I’m getting ahold of your legs”) while exerting more forceful control
touch on Layal; that is, she uses both hands to grab (G) onto Layal’s legs
and then strongly pulls on both of Layal’s ankles in order to drag her back to
sit close to the teacher and Maja (see Figure 6-4). In these ways, the teacher
coordinated control touch and talk, and in particular used talk to inform the
child about her upcoming or concurrent uses of control touch. The
configuration of multiple embodied resources, including talk and touch, was
used to inform the child about the adult’s embodied response to the child’s
resistance.
5. Conclusion
In this chapter we have examined how teachers in preschools in two
societies, Sweden and Japan, employed control touch (and other kinds of
touch) in mediating peer conflict. We have detailed the common sequential
structure of these episodes, characterized as intervention phase, which
included engaging children in explicit moral discourse, and reparatory
phase, which included engaging children in remedial work in face-to-face
embodied formations. Teachers employed control touch along with a range
31
of multimodal resources, including talk and gaze, in indirectly ascribing
blame and responsibility to individual children and assigning categories of
offender and victim, and at times encouraging them to negotiate the
interpretation of the conflict or “who did what to whom.” This use of
control touch as part of larger episodes of triadic conflict management that
employed multiple semiotic resources was adaptable to the contingencies of
the situation and “answerable to the distinctive interests of a particular
social group” (C. Goodwin, 1994, p. 606, on “professional vision”). As
educational settings with specific goals, these preschools had “distinctive
interests”—these interests were lodged with the goals of the preschools and
embedded within the wider society in which the teachers themselves were
members—to care for children and shape their moral and social
development in culturally specific ways. As a symbolic resource, teachers
used control touch (along with talk and other embodied resources) in
working towards these institutional and societal interests; for instance, in
Sweden the teachers’ control touch recurrently included giving children the
opportunity to tell their version of events in ways that promoted children’s
agency as lodged within democratic rights and individual perspectives that
are highly valued in Swedish society. In Japan, this control touch typically
included providing children with formulaic expressions (to which they were
expected to repeat verbatim) as part of what it means to be a member of a
social group who can discern social situations and use language in expected
ways.
As an exploratory study, our analysis has raised questions about
situational, individual, and possible cultural differences of control touch in
32
triadic mediation of peer conflict. A Japanese teacher’s staccato-like pulling
of a child’s arm was deployed at interactionally relevant places in an
utterance to emphasize a social rule; whereas, a Swedish teacher’s
announcement of a control touch (e.g., “Now I’m taking hold of your legs”)
was deployed prior to and concurrently with talk in response to the child’s
resistance to a verbal directive. Similar to Swedish families and preschools
(Cekaite, 2015), verbal requests and directives usually pre-empt bodily
control acts, which serve as a last resort when the child has not complied
with a directive, thereby providing children with interactional opportunities
to engage in the requested action by themselves. Thus, in the Swedish
example, the teacher’s verbal prefacing and coordination of control touch
operated as a resource that mitigated the adult’s physical manipulation of
the child’s body. In these ways, our analysis is only suggestive, and thus
more analysis of control touch in preschools and other early educational
settings as it is lodged within and constitutive of social action within various
communities could lead to a deeper understanding of the ways control touch
play a role in children’s sociality.
Finally, our findings have revealed that preschool teachers’ control
touch encourages children’s sociality and moral accountability by orienting
them to appropriate conduct in the social world of the preschool. Thus, it is
notable that young children are interacted with and socialized not only as
linguistic subjects, but also as embodied subjects, whose bodily actions,
composure and conduct are monitored and shaped by adults in contingently
relevant and meaningful ways.
References
33
Ben-Ari, Eyal (1997). Body Projects in Japanese Childcare: Culture,
Organization and Emotions in a Preschool. Surrey, UK: Curzon
Press.
Bergnehr, Disa, and Cekaite, Asta (2017). The forms and functions of touch
in a Swedish preschool. International Journal of Early Education,
26(3), 312-331.
Björk-Willén, Polly (2018). Learning to apologize: Moral socialization as an
interactional practice in school. Research on Children and Social
Interaction, 2(2), 177-194.
Burdelski, Matthew (2010). Socializing politeness routines: Action, other-
orientation, and embodiment in a Japanese preschool. Journal of
Pragmatics, 42(6), 1606-1621.
Burdelski, Matthew (2011). “Language Socialization and Politeness
Routines.” In: Alessandro Duranti, Elinor Ochs, and Bambi B.
Schieffelin (eds), The Handbook of Language Socialization. Malden,
MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 275-295.
Burdelski, Matthew (2013). “I’m sorry, flower”: Socializing apology,
empathy, and relationships in Japan. Pragmatics and Society, 4(1),
54-81.
Burdelski, Matthew (2015). Reported speech as cultural gloss and directive:
Socializing norms of speaking and acting in a Japanese caregiver-
child triadic interaction. Text & Talk, 35(5), 575-595.
Burke, Rachael S., and Duncan, Judith (2015). Bodies as Sites of Cultural
Reflection in Early Childhood Education. New York and Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
34
Cekaite, Asta (2010). Shepherding the child: Embodied directive sequences
in parent-child interactions. Text & Talk, 30(1), 1-25.
Cekaite, Asta (2013). Socializing emotionally and morally appropriate peer
group conduct through classroom discourse. Linguistics and
Education, 24, 511-522.
Cekaite, Asta (2015). Coordination of talk and touch in adult-child
directives. Touch and social control. Research on Language and
Social Interaction, 48(2), 152-175. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Cekaite, Asta (2016). Touch as social control: Haptic organization of
attention in adult-child interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30-42.
Cekaite, Asta, and Burdelski, Matthew (ms). Crying in young children’s
conflicts: An investigation of caregiver responses to children’s
distress in Sweden and Japan. Unpublished manuscript.
Cekaite, Asta, and Holm Kvist, Malva (2017). The comforting touch:
Tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109-127.
Corsaro, William A., and Rizzo, Thomas A. (1990). “Disputes in the Peer
Culture of American and Italian Nursery-School Children.” In: Allen
D. Grimshaw (ed), Conflict Talk: Sociolinguistic Investigations in
Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21-62.
Danby, Susan, and Theobald, Maryanne (eds) (2012). Disputes in Everyday
Life: Social and Moral Orders of Children and Young People.
Bingley, UK: Emerald.
35
de León, Lourdes (1998). The emergent participant: Interactive patterns in
the socialization of Tzotzil (Mayan) infants. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 8(2), 131-161.
Elkiss, Mitchell L., and Jerome, John A. (2012). Touch—More than a basic
science. The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association,
112(8), 514-517.
Goffman, Erving (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public
Order. New York: Harper and Row.
Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist,
96(3), 606-633.
Goodwin, Charles (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human
interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
Goodwin, Charles (2017). Co-operative Action. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Goodwin, Charles and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1992). “Assessments and the
construction of context.” In: Alessandro Duranti, and Charles
Goodwin (eds), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive
Phenomenon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 147-190.
Press.
Goodwin, Charles, and Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2004). “Participation.” In:
Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology.
Malden, MA: Blackwell, 222-244.
36
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Interaction
among Black Children. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2017). “Haptic Sociality: The Embodied Interactive
Constitution of Intimacy through Touch.” In: Meyer, Christian,
Streeck, Jürgen, and Jordan, J. Scott. (eds). Intercorporeality:
Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 73-102.
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Cekaite, Asta (2013). Calibration in
directive/response sequences in family interaction. Journal of
Pragmatics, 46(1), 122-138.
Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Cekaite, Asta (2018). Embodied Family
Choreography. Practices of Control, Care and Mundane Creativity.
Oxon, UK and New York: Routledge.
Greer, Tim, Bussinguer Vivian, Butterfield, Jeff, and Mischinger, Agnes
(2009). Receipt through repetition. JALT Journal, 31(1), 5-34.
Hayashi, Akiko and Tobin, Joseph (2015). Teaching Embodied: Culture
Practice in Japanese Preschools. Chicago and London: The
University of Chicago Press.
Hertenstein, Matthew J., and Weiss, Sandra J. (2011). The Handbook of
Touch: Neuroscience, Behavioral and Health Perspectives. Berlin:
Springer.
Holm Kvist, Malva (2018). Children’s crying in play conflicts: A locus of
moral and emotional socialization. Research on Children and Social
Interaction, 2(2), 153-176.
37
Kendon, Adam (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in
Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mauss, Marcel (1973 [1935]). Techniques of the body. Economy and
Society, 2, 70-88.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice (1964). “The Philosopher and his Shadow.” In:
Signs (R. McCleary, transl.). Evanston: Northwest University Press,
155-181.
Mondada, Lorenza (2018). Multiple temporalities of language and the body
in interaction: Challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research
on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106.
Montagu, Ashley (1986 [1971]). Touching: The Human Significance of the
Skin. New York: Harper and Row.
Ochs, Elinor, Solomon, Olga, and Sterponi, Laura (2005). Limitation and
transformations of habitus in child-directed communication.
Discourse Studies, 7(4-5), 547-583.
Pomerantz, Anita (1984). “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments:
Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In J.
Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage (eds), Structures of Social
Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 57-101.
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3), 525-
596.
38
Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1990). The Give and Take of Everyday Life:
Language Socialization of Kaluli Children. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Tanner, Luke (2017). Embracing Touch in Dementia Care: A Person-
Centered Approach to Touch and Relationships. London and
Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.