Performing Relationships During Special Occasion Openings

Ashley White

In honor of my uncle Alan.

Pseudonymized as “Alfred” in the “Performing Relationships During Special Occasion

Openings”, the pursuit of this research would not have been possible without your collaboration

and eager support of my academic curiosity. Special occasion interactions will, from now on,

forever be a little less special without you there to welcome us.

Greatly Loved, Deeply Missed.

The goal of this research is to explore the role of opening practices during special/celebratory

occasions. Although openings are present in virtually all interactions, they take on different and

at times larger forms during special/ uncommon interactional events. How these openings are

performed conveys much about the social relationships between the interactants. As such, this

research investigates several critical components of openings in relation to relationship displays.

To achieve this, two recordings are transcribed, analyzed, and interpreted.

Ethnographic Context

The first video takes place on Thanksgiving. The video (six minutes in duration) comprises

examples #1 and #2 and was recorded in Mary’s home. The camera was positioned in her living

room, providing a clear shot of both the living room, the kitchen, and the entrance through

which participants will be arriving. People arrive from the glass door on the left, which leads to

the sunroom which ultimately is where the front door is. There is a total of 11 people in this

interaction. By the time the camera started recording, over half of the participants (6 people

total) had already arrived and settled in. The video, therefore, captures the arrival and settling in

of only 5 participants. Almost immediately, people break into smaller groups to speak with one

another, making the hearing of distinct conversations sometimes challenging. With that being

said, this video is rich with data on openings and it is possible to isolate individual conversations

to gain a deeper understanding of people’s relationship displays. Each of the participants in this

video is in some way socially and relationally connected to one another.

The second video (approximately seven and a half minutes in duration) comprises examples #3

and #4. It displays a series of openings that occurred on the same day and in the same location.

On September 18th (a Sunday) around noon, the family came together to put together a surprise

birthday party to celebrate Mark’s 65th birthday. The surprise takes place at Juliette’s house.

During the recording, Anna and Brennon, had just arrived and were sitting in the dining room/

kitchen area with Juliette and Mark (the celebrated individual). While the camera was getting

setting, the family secretly (unbeknownst to Mark) started setting up birthday decorations in the

garage. Anna, Brennon, and Juliette were aware of this, so their ‘unofficial’ task was to distract

Mark. During the course of the recording, different family members begin arriving. Overall, the

video captures three arrivals (Dean, Ralph, and Alfred) and the “official” arrival of Sue

(“official” because Anna, Brennon, and Juliette were already aware of her presence, but Mark

was not). In this paper, however, only the arrival of Ralph and Dean is analyzed.

Analyzing Examples #1 and #2

The following two examples comprise an introduction sequence between Carly with Juliette and

Mark. These examples are showcased because 1) introductions are somewhat rare in these types

of interactional contexts given that most participants are typically already acquainted with and

close with one another; 2) two introductions happen back-to-back, each with their own

peculiarities and interactional design; 3) this is a peculiar instance of introductions because the

participants had already met on a previous occasion. However, Juliette and Mark have

seemingly forgotten about this. The interactional implications of this unfold in the sequence as

follows:

Example #1

01 JOS: So have you guys met, (.)

02 JOS: ((Points toward Juliette and Mark))

03 JOS: Well you ha[ve

04 SAM: [I think I’ve met everybody.=

05 JOS: =Juliette and Mark. Have you met Juliette and Mark?

06 CAR: I think so.

07 JOS: You have? Okay.

08 ((All three turn left where other conversation is

09 occurring))

At line 01, Josie initiates a pre-introduction sequence and directs it toward arriving parties

Samuel and Carly. While delivering this line, Josie points toward Juliette and Mark (as indicated

in line 02). Pre-introduction sequences are “devoted to checking to see if an introduction is

appropriate before one is launched” (Pillet-Shore, 2011, p. 88). Interestingly, Josie attempts to

take on the role of mediator in the possible introduction sequence she is setting up. According to

Firth, “the role of the third party… is twofold: he (or she) is both the social bridge, the mediator

who facilitates the social contact of the two parties, and he may be also an ostensible guarantor

of their social identity” (1972, p.6). Josie is not the host of this event but given her relationship

with the arriving parties (her son Samuel and her son’s girlfriend Carly) and with the host (her

mother Sheila), it appears that she is uniquely well suited to initiate a mediated introduction. By

attempting to initiate a mediator-introduction, Josie complies with the preference for mediated

introductions over self-introductions (Pillet-Shore, p. 80). “Preferred”, in this instance, is used to

refer to the conversation analytic (CA) concept of preference organization. Preference

organization in CA refers to the idea that typically, in interaction, there is the possibility of

alternative relevant actions that may do affiliative face-affirming actions that promote social

solidarity or disaffiliative face-threatening actions that destroy social solidarity. These two

alternatives, in turn, are not equally valenced and how one chooses to perform them comes with

a different set of interaction features (Pillet-Shore, 2017, p. 3-4).

Josie, however, never actually completes the pre-introduction utterance started at line 01

because she self-interrupts (as indicated by the beat of silence “(.)”) and then does a self-repair

utterance at line 03. Repair refers to the set of practices participants engage in to address and

resolve troubles in speaking. (Pillet-Shore, 2017, p. 18). Repair may be either self-initiated

and/or completed or other-initiated and/or completed (p. 18). In this example, the repair

sequence at lines 01-03 by Josie is self-initiated and self-completed. Thus, this is an example of

self-correction. The onset of the self-interruption and consequential self-repair, furthermore,

coincide with Josie’s ongoing visible/embodied behavior. In fact, it is only after she gazes at

Samuel, her son, that she realizes/remembers that he has already been acquainted with Juliette

and Mark. As such, her pre-introduction sequence is deemed unnecessary and aborted before

reaching completion. In self-repairing, Josie avoids her utterance being met with a “blocking”

response, one that discourages the action the pre-sequence is setting up for (p. 8). Furthermore,

it prevents Samuel from having to do the dispreferred action of other-correction.

This instance of self-repair also entails facework. Face refers to “the positive social value a

person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular

contact” (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). Facework, therefore, refers to the work participants do to ensure

that the positive social value of themselves and others remains positive. Participants in

interaction may engage in different forms of facework, including avoidance and corrective

processes. The avoidance process refers to the actions participants engage in to prevent face-

threatening situations, and the corrective process, on the other hand, refers to the work

participants do to save face after a face threat has occurred (pp. 15-19). In this example, it is

clear that Josie’s aborted utterance does face threat avoidance. By aborting her utterance in line

01, she avoids Samuel’ potential blocking response. Following this, Samuel is instead able to do

alignment with Josie’s renowned self-corrected utterance in line 03. Alignment refers to those

responses that “cooperate by facilitating the proposed activity or sequence; accepting the

presuppositions and terms of the proposed action or activity; and matching the formal design

preference of the turn” (Chapelle, 2020, p. 248). This, in fact, occurs in line 04 when Samuel

aligns with Josie’s self-repair utterance by providing an affirmative response (“I think I’ve

met everybody”). This, in turn, promotes affiliation. Affiliation refers to responses that “are

maximally pro-social when they match the prior speaker’s evaluative stance, display empathy,

and/or cooperate with the preference of the prior action” (p. 249).

Although Samuel’ response could have brought the sequence to an end (a sequence-closing third

such as “Okay” may have been interactionally relevant here), Josie then turns to Carly at line 05

and relaunches her pre-introduction sequence. This time, the focus is specifically on Carly, as

indicated by Josie’s embodied action of putting her hand on Carly’s shoulder and directing her

gaze at her. Carly, who up until this point had remained silent, also provides an aligning and

affiliative affirmative response (I think so) that indicates that an introduction sequence is not

required. Lexically, her response may indicate some kind of uncertainty (she utters “I think

so” as opposed to a stronger affirmative response such as “yes”). However, she delivers this line

in preferred design. Preferred design features include the production of utterances “simply and

straightforwardly –without delay, qualification/mitigation, or account” (Pillet-Shore, 2017, p. 4).

Conversely, dispreferred design includes elements such as delay, qualifications/mitigations, and

accounts (p. 4). As can be observed in line 06, Carly’s deliverance occurs straightforwardly,

without hesitation, gaps of silence or delay, and with no accounts. Given this, the other

participants in the interaction, Samuel and Josie, accept her response at face value and do not

see it fit to engage in sequence expansion (which may have indicated some kind of trouble/

unresolved issue). Rather, in line 07, Josie emphasizes Carly’s response (You have?”) before

doing a sequence-closing third (“Okay”). As such, they indicate that there is nothing left to add

to that specific interactional sequence and, in this case, indicate that all issues have been

adequately addressed and resolved. Another way that the participants indicate that all issues

have been resolved can be observed in lines 08-09. At this point, Josie, Samuel, and Carly

physically reorient themselves from their own interactional bubble to join the ongoing

conversation to their left. Thus, they move to be included in the shared transactional space that

the participants to their left have already established, otherwise understood as the F-formation.

Formations refer to people’s “spatial-orientational organization differing according to how the

participants’ attentional involvements are organized” (Kendon, 2010, p. 5). The participants in

the adjunct conversation to the left move to expand their pre-existing o-space to include

newcomers Josie, Samuel, and Carly. The o-space refers to the inner space formed in

conversational circles that participants “actively operate to sustain [and] is the space reserved

for the main activity of the occasion” (p. 5). In doing so, they subtly promote inclusivity and do

a positive relationship display.

The attempted pre-introduction sequence, then, comes to an end and no longer appears to be

interactionally relevant. Josie has, seemingly, established that the arriving parties are all

acquainted with one another. However, merely a minute later, an issue arises. Juliette, who has

been slowly greeting the pre-present parties in the interaction, finally sets her gaze on Carly. The

following interaction takes place:

Example #2

01 JUL: #I don’t think I- (.) I haven’t met- (2.0)

02 DEA: This is uh:: Samuel’ girlfriend Carly.

03 JOS: Have you not [met ↑Carly?

04 JUL: [CAR:ly?=

05 CAR: =>Carly yes nice too meet you.<=

06 JUL: =Hi::, nice to meet you:.

07 JUL: ((Initiates hug with Carly))

08 CAR: ((Returns hug))

09 ((Overlapping talk/ Unintelligible))

10 JOS: °Yeah I thought you guys met°.

10 JUL: I- I probably forge-

11 CAR: >hihihihih<

12 DEA: ((gestures toward Mark)) And this is my brother

Mark?=

14 JUL: =[I just told-

15 CAR: [°Hi.°

16 MAR: Hi, ((waves))

17 DEA: ((turns toward Carly)) Carly,

18 JUL: I was just saying I forget everything anyway [so just

19 get £u(h)sed to it.

20 CAR: [hih hih

hih hih

21 JUL: ↑heh heh heh heh heh

At line 01, Juliette initiates an utterance that indicates that she is unfamiliar with Carly, whom

she is gazing toward. The interactional design of this utterance is worth paying close attention

to. As previously established, “parties treat mediator-initiated introductions as ‘preferred’ over

self-initiated introductions” (Pillet-Shore, 2011, p. 80). At line 01, it appears that Juliette is

either gearing toward a self-initiated introduction or an explicit request for a mediated-

introduction (#I don’t think I- (.) I haven’t met-). It is important to note that both of

these actions fall within the category of dispreferred actions. The dispreferred nature of her

action can be observed in how she designs her turn. It includes many of the dispreferred features

mentioned above, including hesitancy, cutoffs, and beats of silence. It is worth noting, however,

that such disfluencies may also be attributable to her speech impediment.

At line 02, Dean notices Juliette’s utterance and is able to quickly assess that Juliette must be

unfamiliar with Carly. Similar to Josie, although Dean is not the host to this event, he also finds

himself in a uniquely well-suited position to act as third-party mediator to the unfolding

introduction sequence. Dean is both Juliette’s son and stepfather to Carly’s boyfriend. Therefore,

he is in an optimal epistemic position to introduce the two unacquainted parties. According to

Pillet-Shore, mediators solve the interactional problem of recipient design, which refers to “a

multitude of respects in which the talk by a party in a conversation is constructed or designed in

ways which display an orientation and sensitivity to the particular other(s) who are the

coparticipants” (2011, p. 83). As such, “mediators have an epistemic advantage (over the

unacquainted persons) in their ability to recipient design their formulations of introducible

persons” (p. 83). Participants in interaction, overall, possess varying levels of epistemic

knowledge. Those who know more than other participants are said to be in a K+ position, while

those who know less are in a K- position. These positions oscillate during interaction and can be

brought into equilibrium to help participants achieve “common ground” (Heritage, 2013, p.

376). Dean, therefore, is in a K+ epistemic position compared to Juliette, who is unfamiliar with

Carly and thus finds herself in a K- position. By promoting a third-party mediated introduction

at line 02, however, Dean helps her transition from the K- position to a K+ one.

To achieve mediated introductions and establish common ground, introducers typically do

person reference formulations. Person reference formulations formulate who someone is using

names and/or category terms/descriptors” (Pillet-Shore, 2011, p. 78). These formulations answer

questions concerning connection and ownership, social category identity/categorical

relationship, and account for presence (p. 84). Dean accomplishes this at line 02 (This is uh::

Samuel’ girlfriend Carly), sometimes in subtle ways. Connection and ownership are

established via “Samuel”, who is the known-in-common person between Juliette and Carly.

Social category identity is then achieved through the identity marker “girlfriend”, as it indicates

who Carly is categorically to the known-in-common person Samuel. Finally, the account for

presence is implicitly addressed, as Carly’s relationship to Samuel accounts for her presence at a

family special event (Thanksgiving). This identification works to reduce “social uncertainty”,

which Firth describes as “the formal symbol of a social relationship established… of the

reduction of an unknown to a (putatively) known social position” (p. 4-5). The fact that Dean

addresses her as “Carly” (as opposed to limiting his introduction to “Samuel’ girlfriend”) is also

significant. By stating her name, he allows Juliette to be able to then engage in the introduction

(at lines 04-06).

At line 03, Josie jumps in with a polar question (one that requires a “yes” or “no” response). As

the video displays, Josie is engaged in another ongoing conversation when she overhears

Juliette’s line 01 prompting the third-party mediated introduction accomplished by Dean at line

02. Initially, Josie has her back turned toward the camera as she engages in conversation with

her sister Betsy (as displayed in Image 1). As she overhears the beginning of the introduction,

however, she reorients the upper part of her body toward Juliette and Carly so that she is in body

torque. Body torque refers to the “divergent orientations of the body sectors above and below

the neck and waist, respectively” (Schegloff, 1998, p. 536). By entering into body torque, she

abandons her home position. The home position is “the position from which some limb or

physical movement departed, and the return to which marks a possible ending to a spate or unit

of activity” (p. 542). Body torque, therefore, may be resolved by doing a return to home position

or by doing a full body reorientation. In this example, as Josie realizes that Juliette and Carly are

seemingly unacquainted, she does a full body reorientation so that her renowned home position

is the orientation toward the unacquainted parties. She also reaches her left arm out toward

Carly.

In addition to this, Josie establishes eye gaze with Juliette. This is partly obscured in the video,

as Dean partially stands in front of her. As Josie overhears the conversation, therefore, she

seemingly abandons her previous activity and becomes locked into the ongoing mediated

introduction to her left. Josie’s behavior may be accounted for considering her previous

attempted mediated introduction explored in Example #1. Given that she had asked Carly

whether she had met Juliette and Mark (Example #1, Line 5), she is now under the impression

that everyone in the room is acquainted with one another.

At lines 04-08, the introduction sequence finally takes place. At line 04, Juliette does a person

reference formulation repeat (Car:ly?) with rising tone intonation. Person reference

formulation repeats do work to “commit that name to memory” (Pillet-Shore, 2011, p. 78).

Therefore, Juliette displays an orientation to being accountable for remembering Carly’s name

from now on. At line 05, Carly confirms her name (Carly yes) and does an introduction-

specific assessment (nice too meet you). Introduction-specific assessments may act to assess

how it is to meet the addressed recipient (p. 78). This assessment, in turn, is returned by Juliette

at line 06 (nice to meet you:). Juliette also does a greeting at line 06 (Hi::). By doing this,

she ratifies “the relevance of an incipient/in-progress introduction” (p. 78). Finally, at line 07,

Juliette initiates touch/body contact (p. 78) which is consequently returned by Carly at line 08.

By engaging in touch/body contact, participants “display a positive affective stance” that

promotes affiliation or rapport.

Another characteristic that is commonly observed in introductions that can also be found in this

example is the presence of overlap. According to Pillet-Shore, “introducible persons observably

work to achieve overlap with one another when producing introduction sequence actions” (2011,

p. 78). At lines 03-04, the end of Josie’s turn and the beginning of Juliette’s occur in clear

overlap. In addition to this, participants often rush-through “transition-relevance places to secure

additional turn-constructional units” (p.78-79). Such rush-throughs, indicated by the “=” symbol

in the transcript, can be observed at lines 04-06. Another common element in introductions is

sound-stretching utterances to achieve overlap. This can be observed at lines 03-04, specifically

at line 04 when Juliette stretches the utterance “Car:ly”. Overall, more sound-stretching

(without overlap) also occurs at line 06 “Hi::” and “you:”.

Another common element in introductions is a claim of preexisting knowledge about the

introducible person. Such utterances essentially claim that at least one of the introducible

persons already knows about the other (Pillet-Shore, 2011, p. 78). This concept is relevant in

this introduction sequence when considered in conjunction with Example 1. As is established by

Josie’s query, Carly should be already acquainted with Juliette and Mark. She confirms so by

stating the affirmative “I think so”, which brings the Example 1 sequence to an end.

However, when the subsequent introduction initiated by Juliette takes place, Carly takes no

corrective action to remind Juliette about their previous encounter. By choosing not to do other-

correction, Carly does protective facework. Juliette, an elderly woman, is prone to having

memory issues. This is especially true when it comes to remembering people she infrequently

sees, such as Carly. Instead of pointing out their prior acquaintance, which would put a spotlight

on Juliette’s remembering problem, Carly chooses to act as if they have never met. This, in

itself, promotes affiliation.

At line 10, Josie points out that, to her knowledge (established in Example 1), Juliette and Carly

have already been introduced (°Yeah I thought you guys met°). Her choice to bring this

fact to the surface while the other participants (namely Carly) have done work to conceal it is

worth nothing. While Carly does affiliative work, Josie seemingly does the opposite with this

utterance. One way of accounting for this is by considering what Josie was attempting to do in

Example 1. As established, Josie’s role as daughter of the hostess and mother of Carly’s

boyfriend puts her in a uniquely well-suited position to act as the third-party introducer between

known-in-common Carly and Juliette. In an attempt to fulfill this role, she does a pre-

introduction sequence in Example 1, which is met with a blocking response that, therefore, ends

the sequence. Now, however, she discovers that Juliette is not acquainted (to her knowledge)

with Carly. Josie’s utterance at line 10, therefore, may be a subtle way of doing defensive

facework. It communicates the idea that, to her knowledge, Carly and Juliette had already met

and absolves her from not going ahead with a mediated introduction. In other words, Josie does

a subtle account for her previous behavior.

Josie’s utterance is picked up on by Juliette, who quickly attempts to do accounting work of her

own. At line 11, Juliette initiates an utterance that, for her part, seems to be the beginning of an

account for why she didn’t recognize Carly (I- I probably forge-). However, she is cut off

by a second mediated introduction initiated by Dean between Carly and Mark (lines 13-14 and

16-17). Juliette attempts her account a second time at line 15 (I just told-), but is again cut

off. Finally, Juliette delivers a successful account at line 19 in which she explains that “I

forget everything anyway”. This utterance does protective facework. Juliette protects her

face by accounting for why she did not remember Carly, attributing her forgetfulness and

successfully absolving herself from the face-threatening situation she found herself in.

Juliette’s mention of her forgetfulness can be considered a delicate subject. In conversation,

there are instances in which a topic may arise that “breaches conversational standards” and may

be perceived as a “delicate” subject (Lerner, 2013, p. 95). Given this, the involved participants

in this example may be hesitant and unsure of how to respond. Should this utterance be taken as

a serious/ somber statement assessing Juliette’s health? Or is it possible to perceive it in a

lighthearted and even humorous manner? Juliette’s subsequent TCU at lines 19-20 clarifies this.

Her utterance “so just get £u(h)sed to it”, delivered with a laughing voice (indicated by

the “£” symbol), communicates to the other participants that it is okay, and perhaps it is

encouraged, to laugh about her forgetfulness. Laughter, in this context, encourages subsequent

affiliation by Carly and Josie at lines 21-23.

Analyzing Examples #3

Example #3 takes place during the setting up of a surprise party. The camera angle only truly

shows Brennon (to the left) and Juliette (to the right). Off-screen, to the right, sit Mark (whose

birthday party the participants are preparing for) and Anna. The example starts at the .53-second

marker and captures the off-screen arrival of Ralph (Mark’s brother). This arrival was selected

and is analyzed in detail because of the presence of many opening characteristics, including but

not limited to: becoming copresent, identification, greetings, lapses, and previous activity

formulations. In addition to this, this arrival contains a special greeting utterance type, a feature

frequently observed in special occasion openings such as the ones explored in this paper.

Example #3

10 [((Door Opens))

11 JUL: ↑Hi::?

12 RAL: Hello::?

13 JUL: [Oh: ] the:re’s Ralph:?

At lines 10-11, becoming socially copresent occurs. Becoming copresent occurs at the earliest

possible moment in openings, as it represents the moment “participants physically make their

way into social interaction” (Pillet-Shore, 2018a, p. 4). The arriving party may move to gain

admission in different ways, and how one chooses to become socially copresent has

interactional implications. In this example, Ralph self-admits by letting himself into Juliette’s

house without any accompanying warning summons actions (such as knocking on the door or

ringing the doorbell). According to Pillet-Shore, “the choices parties make about how they

become physically and then socially copresent reflect and propose the state and character of

their social relationships” (2018a, p. 5). By letting himself into Juliette’s house in this way, he

displays less territorial deference and, consequently, a stronger bond with Juliette. Given the

ethnographic context of this interaction, we know that Ralph is Juliette’s son. As such, he has

visited her home on countless occasions and knows that their relationship does not warrant a

summons/answer sequence.

At lines 11-13, an identification sequence occurs. As Ralph self-admits at line 10, Juliette

appears initially confused as to who is at her door at line 11 (as indicated by the rising turn-final

intonation represented by the “?” symbol). This, in turn, marks the beginning of an identification

sequence. Identification refers to the sensitivity to establishing the identity of others at the very

outset of interaction (Schegloff, 1986, p. 118). It is particularly found in interactions where

visual inspection of the other is not possible, such as telephone conversations. However, it

applies to this example as well as Juliette is unable to see Ralph at the time of the identification

sequence. Juliette’s utterance at line 11, in this context, also does “presence validation and threat

denial” (Pillet-Shore, 2012, p. 375). Juliette is unaware of who is entering her home and is

potentially facing the threat of having a stranger let themself in. Requesting an identification,

therefore, acts as a way of reducing potential threats and, in an even more subtle way, accounts

for the arriving party’s presence in that interactional context. Ralph, for his part, answers her

request at line 12 by saying “Hello::?”. In his response, he does not explicitly self-identify (for

example, he does not say “Hello, it’s Ralph”). In doing so, Ralph communicates the idea that

Juliette should have the tools (the sound of his voice and the contextual setting) required to

complete the identification sequence. This interactional choice is yet another way Ralph

displays intimacy and the strength of his relationship with Juliette. At line 13, Ralph’s

assumption turns out to be true as Juliette accurately identifies him (the:re’s Ralph:). Such a

response does not promote sequence expansion, thereby displaying that no other identifying

utterances are required. In this sense, the preference for brevity in identification can be

observed. According to Schegloff, if possible “the minimum resources… should be needed by

the current interlocutor in view of the current state of the relationship” to achieve recognition

(1986, p. 127). Line 13, then, establishes that recognition has been successful and promotes the

closure of the identification sequence.

Example #3 Continued

14 BRE: [°Hi°]

15 ANN: [Hi? °Heh heh°

16 RAL: [Hey hey?

17 JUL: Hi:,

18 RAL: ↑Hello: Mark.

19 MAR: Uh (.) Hello::.

20 ANN: °huh huh°

At lines 14-19, the participants engage in a series of greetings. Greetings refer to the “discrete

audible and visibly (vocal, verbal/lexical, and embodied) actions that participants deploy to

publicly mark the moment when they ratify another’s social copresence” (Pillet-Shore, 2018a, p.

5). It is the recognition that an encounter with another is deemed “socially acceptable (Firth,

1972, p. 1). According to Pillet-Shore, participants to incipient encounters typically withhold

greetings until having a clear idea of “who’s there”. By doing this, they display “their

orientation to identification/recognition via visual inspection as prerequisite to producing a

copresent greeting” (2012, p. 377). This occurs in this example, as the greeting sequence only

takes place after Juliette has been able to identify Ralph as the arriver. The video, furthermore,

shows that this inspection is both verbal (her request for identification at line 11) and visual (she

physically reorients her body so that she is in direct eye line of the door). In addition to this, not

all greetings are the same. Participants “design their greetings for particular addressed-

recipients, tailoring them to (display) their own understanding/appraisal of “who we are to one

another right now” (p. 377). In this example, the way participants prosodically construct their

relationship does interactional work to display the participants’ relationships with one another.

The participants use “large” greetings, those which sound “big, substantial, effusive” (p. 383).

Ways of doing large greetings include lengthening utterances, using a louder tone of voice than

the previous in-progress talk, visibly/audibly smiling, and using high onest pitch with gradual

fall-to-mid (p. 384). Such greetings are also typically done in a chorus of overlapping talk (p.

383). In this example, it is possible to observe instances of overlap (lines 14-16), sound

stretching (lines 17 and 19), and a louder tone of voice (line 19). Large greetings display

multiple things in interaction. First, it displays successful recognition (p. 388). It is no

coincidence, then, that this type of greeting takes place immediately after the previously

examined identification sequence. Furthermore, large greetings treat the current encounter as

special. Specifically “‘large’ clusters of prosodic features indexes speakers’ orientation to the

amount of time elapsed since last contact as significant” (p. 388). This idea is also supported by

Firth, who claims that during greetings participants manifest “regret for past severance” (1972,

p. 8). Said “regret”, furthermore, tends to manifest in a manner that is proportional to the time

elapsed between the last encounter and the one currently taking place. In other words, the longer

two parties have been separated, the grander their greeting is likely to be as a way of making up

for not keeping in touch. It is a way of reasserting the strength of their social relationship and

establishing that, despite the elapsed time, the relationship is just as strong as the last time they

were in each other’s presence. This is particularly relevant in special occasion interactions, as

the greeting participants typically have not seen each other for a prolonged period of time.

Another aspect of this greeting sequence worth noting is that, while Ralph greets all the other

participants without specifically referring to them, he greets Mark with a specific personal

formulation at line 18 (“↑Hello: Mark”). By explicitly addressing Mark by his name during the

greeting sequence, it is possible that Ralph is doing some kind of pre-sequence. Such work is

relevant in this interactional context as this is a multi-party interaction. That is, there are more

than two participants engaging in conversation. Ralph’s utterance calls out for Mark’s attention,

specifically making sure that he, out of all participants, is directly engaged with him. One way

of accounting for this is that, shortly thereafter, Ralph is going to wish Mark a happy birthday.

Therefore, this greeting utterance may be doing work to prepare Mark to be the recipient of

birthday wishes.

Example #3 Continued

21 RAL: Happy birthday.

22 MAR: uh (.) uh thank >you< Ra:ndy.

23 RAL: You’re welcome.

At line 21, Ralph does the special greeting utterance type “Happy birthday”. This utterance

takes place early in the interaction (perhaps as early as interactionally and contextually

possible). Furthermore, the wishes are also delivered in preferred design (including

characteristics such as smooth delivery, no hesitancy/lapses, and delivered straightforwardly).

Doing birthday wishes is a face-affirming action. By doing so, Ralph affirms that Mark’s

birthday is a mentionable worth bringing up in the earliest moments in conversation. This is

another way Ralph displays a positive relationship during the opening sequence of a special

occasion interaction. It is worth noting, in fact, that the lack of such wishes could have been

perceived as a noticeably missing action. This, in turn, could have put the relationship in

jeopardy and stalled the conversation upon further corrective action. Following this, Mark does

a relevant SPP that accepts Ralph’s special greeting utterance, which in turn promotes sequence

closure at line 23. Mark, however, seemingly treats the sequence as incomplete, as he then

moves to expand it:

Example #3 Continued

26 MAR: (my my) is it a big one.

27 RAL: Okay?

28 (2.0)

29 JUL: .hh we’re not ready to go yet, [°honey°.

30 MAR: [↓No no no no no

At line 26, Mark does an assessment. To assess is to evaluate, judge, or state one’s personal

appraisal of the value of some referent. With assessments, participants claim knowledge of that

which they are assessing (Pomerantz, 1984, p. 57). Mark does a positively valenced assessment

toward his birthday. His birthday, in turn, can be considered an owned referent. Owned referents

are those for which participants are regarded as responsible for (Pillet-Shore, 2021, p. 18). In a

broader sense, however, it refers to those referents that participants regard as “mine”. By

positively assessing his birthday, a second assessment becomes relevant here. Second

assessments “are assessments produced by recipients of prior assessments in which the referents

in the seconds are the same as those in the priors” (Pomerantz, 1984, p. 59). Ralph, however,

does not produce one. Rather, he does a minimal neutral SPP at line 27 that neither positively

nor negatively assesses the assessable. Again, his utterance is one that promotes sequence

closure. This type of action may be considered a subtle example of disalignment, as Ralph is not

doing the action (second assessment) that Mark attempts to set him up for at line 26.

Following this, at line 28 there is a 2-second lapse in conversation. Lapses, according to Hoey,

refer to “periods of nontalk that develop when all interactants forgo the opportunity to self-select

in a place where speaking was possible” (2018, p. 1). The position of this lapse is relevant. It

occurs just at the end of the overall opening sequence (including summonsing, identification,

greeting, and special greeting). Furthermore, the lapse occurs after Ralph’s move to terminate

the assessment sequence initiated by Mark. Lapses, typically, engender one of three interactional

consequences: they may end the interaction, continue with prior talk, or start something new

(Hoey, 2018). In this case, at line 29 a new topic is formulated and the participants resume their

talk.

Example #3 Continued

31 JUL: He’s still, we’re- we’re- (.) doing something in the

32 gara:ge you can se~e. ((cough)) (°that’s°) °that’s why

33 he’s here°.

34 RAL: Ahh::.

As the participants reengage in conversation after the lapse, a previous activity formulation

takes place at lines 31-33. Previous activity formulations typically occur when a newcomer

arrives at a previously ongoing conversation. Such sequences “include arriving newcomers into

previously-in-progress and ongoing interactions” (Pillet-Shore, 2010, p. 154). Specifically, they

“make sense for the newcomer, preparing her/him epistemically by naming and summarizing the

activities that have transpired prior to his/her arrival and/or deciphering indexical aspects of the

previously-in-progress interaction” (p. 155-156). In this example, Juliette catches Ralph up as

to what has been going on so far. She briefly (and somewhat discreetly) informs him about what

is going on in the garage (Sue and Sonie, two family members, are putting together the birthday

surprise decorations for Mark). This serves to make sense of the previously-in-progress

interaction for newcomer Ralph. Juliette then moves to inform him of what the pre-present

participants (herself, Brennon, Anna, and Mark) are doing in the living room. How previous

activity formations take place in conversation is socially relevant. Such sequences may either be

proffered or requested. To proffer a previous activity formulation is preferred, while having to

explicitly request one is dispreferred (Pillet-Shore, 2010, p. 160). Furthermore, proffering a

previous activity formulation promotes inclusivity, while requests do not. In this example, Ralph

does not have to explicitly request a previous activity formulation. Rather, one is proffered

relatively early in the interaction. This, therefore, promotes inclusivity toward Ralph and is

another way participants display their social relationships.

Analyzing Example #4

Example #4 also takes place during the setting up of Mark’s surprise birthday party. The

example starts at the 6:16 second marker and captures the off-screen arrival of Dean (Mark’s

youngest brother). This arrival contains regular opening elements such as becoming copresent

and greetings. Furthermore, this clip also includes examples of registering, teasing, and noticing.

Ultimately, however, it was selected because it represents a deviant case in preference

organization in arrival sequences.

Example #4

05 ANN: °just do it.°

06 BRE: heh.

07 ANN: Why: no:[t.

08 DEA: [He:y.

09 BRE: ((turns around)) [↑Hey!

10 DEA: [°Hi Mark,°

11 ANN: [°°↑Hey:°°=

In Example #4, becoming copresent starts at line 08. This line, furthermore, also initiates the

greeting sequence that unfolds from lines 08-11 and then continues later on in the transcript. The

somewhat prolonged production of Dean’s utterance (as represented by the “:” symbol), seems

to indicate that he is treating this greeting as a special occasion and using “large” features.

Overall, his utterance appears to be doing the action of announcing his arrival and does not do

much to promote or do relationship displays. Following Dean’s utterance, the pre-present

participants turn to meet his gaze and respond to the initiated greeting sequence. Brennon, in

particular, engages in multiple instances of body torque starting at the 6:26 time marker in the

video recording.

One interesting thing to note about Brennon’s embodied behavior is that although he enters into

body torque, it is not continuous. In fact, over the span of 26 seconds (up until time marker 6:50,

when he finally does a permanent return to home position), he torques-untorques his body six

times. It is worth noting, furthermore, that while some instances of his body torque are greater

(the first three times, for example, there is intense torquing of the chest, shoulders, neck and

head), in other occasions his torquing behavior is barely perceptible (such as in the last three

instances, when he primarily cranes his neck). Furthermore, despite the arrival of a new person,

Brennon never does a full body reorientation. As the images display, he does upper body torque

but his dominant orientation remains the table. This, therefore, is in contrast with Josie’s

example of body torque Example #2. While Josie abandons her previous home position to

instead pursue the ongoing conversation to her left, Brennon’s home position never changes.

This behavior, however subtle it may seem throughout the overall interaction, does work to

display (or rather, in this case, not display) social relationships. By never doing a full body

reorientation, Brennon is displaying that arriving party Dean is only tangentially and

temporarily receiving his attention. This, in turn, may act to block Dean from attempting to

engage in further conversation with him. One way of accounting for this behavior may be

understood by considering the relationships between these two participants. Dean is Brennon’s

father. Furthermore, Brennon was already aware that, at some point, Dean would be arriving at

the party since they live together and left the house to go to the party at roughly the same time.

Seeing Dean’s arrival, therefore, is neither surprising nor eventful for Brennon. Therefore, after

Brennon fulfills the interactional and social duty of acknowledging Dean the newcomer and

exchanging greetings with him (at line 09), there is not much left to be said or done. In a very

subtle way, essentially, Brennon’s lack of further or grander acknowledgement toward Dean

may actually be doing interactional work to display the strength of their relationship.

Further relationship displays between Dean and Brennon can be observed in the interaction as

follows:

Example #4 Continued

08 DEA: [He:y.

09 BRE: ((turns around)) [↑Hey!

10 DEA: [°Hi Mark,°

11 ANN: [°°↑Hey:°°=

12 BRE: =You’re [late.

13 JUL: [°Hi:.°

14 MAR: [Hi: Dean,

15 ANN: Hey lo:ok at you slacker you got here after everyone

16 else and by everyone else I mean Ralph.

17 DEA: °heh heh heh.°

18 BRE: °You’re° la:te,

After delivering a greeting utterance at line 09, Brennon’s next interactional move points out

Dean’s supposed tardiness at line 12 (You’re [late). This is, at an initial glance, a face-

threatening action. It does the action of registering, which can be understood as doing the action

of calling attention of a publicly perceivable referent (Pillet-Shore, 2021, p. 13). Registering,

typically, follows the rules of preference organization. As such, positive instances of registering

are typically delivered in preferred design while negative instances of registering are typically

delivered in dispreferred design. In this example, however, Brennon negatively registers Dean’s

tardiness with preferred design. Such an action represents a deviant case in preference

organization. In this case, preferred design can be observed in the fact that Brennon’s line is

delivered at the earliest moment in conversation (just after he has exchanged greetings with

Dean) and his utterance is delivered with preferred features such as straightforward production

of the utterance. This utterance, furthermore, can be considered an example of teasing. Teasing

is conceptualized in two ways. First, it is “a provocative cutting down of a target that is

construed as (ostensibly) non-serious” and second, it is a “provocative setting up of a target that

is construed as (ostensibly) non-serious” (Haugh, 2017, p. 4). In this case, it appears that the

first conceptualization applies to the line of teasing pursued by Brennon. Following the initial

tease at line 12, two more instances of teasing occur at lines 15-16 (delivered by Anna) and then

again at line 18. Anna’s lines 15-16 latch on to Brennon’s initial teasing utterance at line 12, in a

way expanding it. This expansion may be attributed to the fact that Dean, in not responding to

and affiliating to the initial attempt at teasing, prompts the participants (Anna and Brennon) to

attempt to get him to “play along”. In fact, while Dean does not respond to the initial tease, he

does offer a light chuckle in response to Anna’s lines 15-16. To understand why the teasing takes

place during this particular interactional moment, however, it is again necessary to consider the

context of the conversation. Anna and Brennon are Dean’s children. They live with him and see

him on a daily basis. When departing to go to Juliette’s house, they all left the same home at

approximately the same time to meet there. Therefore, by the time Anna and Brennon see Dean

again, it has likely been just about an hour since their last face-to-face encounter. Given this, the

greeting sequence is cut short to instead engage in playful teasing. The fact that this teasing,

overall, occurs at one of the earliest possible moments in interaction suggests a strong

relationship between Dean, Anna, and Brennon.

Example #4 Continued

18 BRE: °You’re° la:te,

19 ANN: Oh:, but you brought food so: I guess you [have an

20 excuse

21 DEA: [Well

After the teasing sequence, noticing occurs at lines 19-20. Anna produces an utterance that

notices that Dean is carrying several bags full of groceries for the party (off-screen). Noticing

may be accomplishing several things in this context. First, noticing serves to account and

mitigate for the previous teasing and negative registering that took place. Furthermore, noticing

may also be doing face-preserving work. Throughout the previously analyzed teasing sequence,

Dean only audibly affiliates with the teasing he is on the receiving end of once (at line 17).

Although the teasing is lighthearted in nature, it is possible that it could be perceived as a face-

threat. As a result, noticing that Dean “brought food” and claiming that “you [have an

excuse” (account) does work to recover face.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has explored the role of opening practices during special/celebratory

occasions in examples #1-3. Emphasis is put on different aspects of openings. Examples #1-2

focus mainly on the interactional feature of introductions and third-party introductions. Such

sequences showcase the initiation of social relationships and also showcase the work

interactants do to make sure others are acquainted with (and, therefore, comfortable) with one

another). Example #3 focuses on unexpected arrivals during celebratory occasions. Emphasis is

put on territorial deference, affiliation, face, and previous activity formulations as a means of

promoting inclusivity and displaying relationship. Overall, relationship displays manifest

themselves differently depending on factors such as intimacy, setting, time elapsed since

previous encounter, and reason for encounter.

Research Project: Final Paper Appendix

Thanksgiving Introductions

Juliette= JUL

Dean= DEA

Josie= JOS

Carly= CAR

Mark= MAR

Samuel= SAM

Example #1

(3:34-3:43)

01 JOS: So have you guys met, (.)

02 JOS: ((Points toward Juliette and Mark))

03 JOS: Well you ha[ve

04 SAM: [I think I’ve met everybody.=

05 JOS: =Juliette and Mark. Have you met Juliette and Mark?

06 CAR: I think so.

07 JOS: You have? Okay.

08 ((All three turn left where other conversation is

09 occurring))

Example #2

(Skip to 5:00)

01 JUL: #I don’t think I- (.) I haven’t met- (2.0)

02 DEA: This is uh:: Samuel’ girlfriend Carly.

03 JOS: Have you not [met ↑Carly?

04 JUL: [Chey:enne?=

05 CAR: =>Carly yes nice too meet you.<=

06 JUL: =Hi::, nice to meet you:.

07 JUL: ((Initiates hug with Carly))

08 CAR: ((Returns hug))

09 ((Overlapping talk/ Unintelligible))

10 JOS: °Yeah I thought you guys met°.

11 JUL: I- I probably forge-

12 CAR: >hihihihih<

13 DEA: ((gestures toward Mark)) And this is my brother

14 Mark?=

15 JUL: =[I just told-

16 CAR: [°Hi.°

17 MAR: Hi, ((waves))

18 DEA: ((turns toward Carly)) Carly,

19 JUL: I was just saying I forget everything anyway [so just

20 get £u(h)sed to it.

21 CAR: [hih hih

22 hih hih

23 JUL: ↑heh heh heh heh heh

Birthday Surprise Arrivals

Juliette= JUL

Brennon= BRE

Anna= ANN

Ralph= RAL

Mark= MAR

Dean= DEA

Example #3

(00:53-01:49)

01 JUL: A:nd, (.) uhm (.) Alfred and Kate are coming and I’m

02 ho:pi:ng (.) uhm (.) Zeke °can come°.

03 ANN: Mhm=

04 BRE: =°Hm°=

05 JUL: =And I don’t know ~oehh~ (.) That’s- that’s her

06 graduation (.) picture.

07 ANN: Cara?

08 JUL: °Eh° that’s Ca:ra. ~Yeahh~ see?

09 ANN: [Ni:ce.

10 [((Door Opens))

11 JUL: ↑Hi::?

12 RAL: Hello::?

13 JUL: [Oh: ] the:re’s Ralph:?

14 BRE: [°Hi°]

15 ANN: [Hi? °Heh heh°

16 RAL: [Hey hey?

17 JUL: Hi:,

18 RAL: ↑Hello: Mark.

19 MAR: Uh (.) Hello::.

20 ANN: °huh huh°

21 RAL: Happy birthday.

22 MAR: uh (.) uh thank >you< Ra:ndy.

23 RAL: You’re welcome.

24 JUL: [((coughs))

25 ANN: [°huh huh huh huh°

26 MAR: (my my) is it a big one.

27 RAL: Okay?

28 (2.0)

29 JUL: .hh we’re not ready to go yet, [°honey°.

30 MAR: [↓No no no no no

31 JUL: He’s still, we’re- we’re- (.) doing something in the

32 gara:ge you can se~e. ((cough)) (°that’s°) °that’s why

33 he’s here°.

34 RAL: Ahh::.

Example #4

(6:16- 6:41)

01 ANN: My idea was,

02 ((pots clacking in the kitchen))

03 ANN: We >should just< buy the camp.

04 BRE: ((raises eyebrows))

05 ANN: °just do it.°

06 BRE: heh.

07 ANN: Why: no:[t.

08 DEA: [He:y.

09 BRE: ((turns around)) [↑Hey!

10 DEA: [°Hi Mark,°

11 ANN: [°°↑Hey:°°=

12 BRE: =You’re [late.

13 JUL: [°Hi:.°

14 MAR: [Hi: Dean,

15 ANN: Hey lo:ok at you slacker you got here after everyone

16 else and by everyone else I mean Ralph.

17 DEA: °heh heh heh.°

18 BRE: °You’re° la:te,

19 ANN: Oh:, but you brought food so: I guess you [have an

20 excuse

21 DEA: [Well

References

Firth, R. (1972). Verbal and bodily rituals of greeting and parting. Pp. 1-34 in J. S. La

Fontaine (Ed.), The interpretation of ritual: Essays in honour of A. I. Richards. London:

Tavistock Ltd.

Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work. Pp. 5-45 in Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face

behavior. New York: Pantheon.

Haugh, M. (2017). Teasing. In Salvatore Attardo (ed.), Handbook of Language and

Humour (pp.204-218), Routledge, London.

Heritage, J. (2013). Epistemics in Conversation. Pp.370-394 in The Handbook of

Conversation Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.

Hoey, E. (2018). How speakers continue with talk after a lapse in conversation. In

Danielle Pillet-Shore (Guest Editor) special issue, “Opening and Maintaining Face-to-

Face Interaction,” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 329-346.

Kendon, A. (2010). Spacing and Orientation in Co-present Interaction. Pp. 1-15 in

Development of Multimodal Interfaces: Active Listening and Synchrony. Springer.

Lerner, G. (2013). On the place of hesitating in delicate formulations: a turn-

constructional infrastructure for collaborative indiscretion. In Conversational Repair and

Human Understanding (pp. 95–134). Cambridge University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511757464.004

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018b). Arriving: Expanding the personal state sequence. In Danielle

Pillet-Shore (Guest Editor) special issue, “Opening and Maintaining Face-to-Face

Interaction,” Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 232-247.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2011). Doing introductions: The work involved in meeting someone

new. Communication Monographs, 78(1), 73-95.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2018a). How to Begin, Research on Language and Social Interaction,

51:3, 213-231.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2012). Greeting: Displaying stance through prosodic recipient design.

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(4), 375-398.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724994.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2010). Making way and making sense: Including newcomers in

interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(2), 152-175.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2017). Preference organization. In Jon Nussbaum (Editor-in-Chief), The

Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.132.

Pillet-Shore, D. (2021). When to make the sensory social: Registering in face-to-face

openings. Symbolic Interaction, 44(1), 10-39. Published online March 27 2020.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of

preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. Pp. 57-101. In Structures of Social Action. Cambridge

University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1998). Body torque. Social Research, 65(3):535-596.

Schegloff, E. A. (1986). The routine as achievement. Human Studies, 9, 111-151.

Steensig, J. (2020). Conversation Analysis and Affiliation and Alignment. Pp. 248-253.

In The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (1st edition). Wiley-Blackwell.