Relinquishing in musical masterclasses: Embodied action in interactional projects

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49 www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Relinquishing in musical masterclasses: Embodied action in interactional projects Darren J. Reed * Sociology Department, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK Received 20 October 2014; received in revised form 13 September 2015; accepted 17 September 2015

Abstract This paper provides analysis of a particular phenomenon found in the transitions from instruction to performance in music masterclasses in what might be called ‘action frame transitions’. By undertaking a conversation analytic multi-modal analysis, it provides a progressive appreciation of what we will call the ‘relinquishing move’ produced by the master. Importantly this ‘move’ is related sequentially to various actions by participants to the scene that while sequentially ordered nevertheless show up a flexible organisation. The relinquishing move is seen to address a key issue in music masterclasses, the precise timing of action frame transitions, in that it is a resource for projecting upcoming performances. © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Embodied choreography; Music masterclasses; Relinquishing move; Performance preparation; Action frame transition

1. Introduction There is a growing analytic literature that focuses on musical instruction and rehearsal (Weeks, 1996; Nishizaka, 2006; Haviland, 2011; Tolins, 2013). The current study builds on previous analysis of the musical masterclass as an instance of musical instruction in which activities are divided into instruction activities and performance activities (Szczepek Reed et al., 2013). As such these activities form what Robinson (2003) calls an ‘interactional project’ (p.30). Earlier work has noted a key dynamic of such social interaction is the move from an instruction action framework to a performance action framework in relation to the various rights and responsibilities to act (Reed and Szczepek Reed, 2013). This paper picks up and develops a line of analysis concerned with the accomplishment of a smooth transition between the two action frameworks that combines the master’s issuing of instruction-oriented action directive with embodied movement. The masterclass is a form of instructional interaction that takes place in front of an audience. The audience is typically made up of the performer’s student peers in university-based tuition, but could also include members of the public, family and friends. Master classes typically begin with the introduction of a piece by a student or set of students and then its performance. One or more tutors, or masters, then provide comments, information, and instructions and initiate reperformances of smaller elements of the piece, giving evaluative feedback as this is done. The masterclass typically ends with another full performance. The masterclass is then oriented to both as instruction and performance in front of an audience, and is seen as a form of practical performance tuition.

* Tel.: +44 01904 323047. E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.09.006 0378-2166/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

32

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

Instructions are of two types in music masterclasses: those that require a response action at some unspecified point in the future, ‘non-local action directives’, and those that require a response action immediately, ‘local action directives’ (Szczepek Reed et al., 2013). The second centres on the ‘conditional relevance’ of performing when instructing a student; that is when a verbal instruction makes relevant an embodied musical performance. It also speaks to the relationship between instruction and instructed action in Garfinkel and Rawls’s (2002) discussion of ‘accountability constraints’ in which action is ‘prospectively construed to meet constraints of praxeological validity’ (p.41). In terms of the embodied movement, Szczepek Reed et al. (2013) note that on a number of occasions the master walks ‘off stage’ (or away from the performance area) during an instructional interaction. More specifically, a ‘retreat from the engagement space’ was detailed as one element of a performance restart (Reed and Szczepek Reed, 2014) that highlights the centrality of embodied actions: ‘‘A close analysis of this sequence reveals that in spite of the verbal initiation of the re-performance. . ., the transition from instruction to re-performance is locally negotiated via embodied actions, i.e., the master’s retreat from the engagement space and the [student-]singer’s orientation to, and alignment with this retreat’’ (Reed and Szczepek Reed, 2013, p. 334). This noticing is used as the basis of the current paper, but treats it to greater scrutiny and in doing so develops an appreciation of the phenomenon in its sequential production. This paper is concerned with multimodal behaviour and interaction, from an ethnomethodological and conversation analytic perspective (Goodwin and Goodwin, 1987). It is a concern with the rich description of combinations of verbal and embodied actions, such as gestures, gaze and movement through space in material contexts, which form the embodied choreography (Streeck et al., 2013) of the masterclass. In addition it is closely aligned with emerging work concerned with the mobility of individual and collective bodies as they move through space (e.g., Broth and Mondada, 2013; Broth and Keevallik, 2014 and McIlvenny et al., 2014). In particular it is concerned with the coordination of a collective move from one set of actions (instruction) to another (performance). These descriptions lead to an analytic appreciation of a number of specific actions and their structural arrangements, including the preparatory actions of the student-singer and pianoplaying accompanist. In particular these efforts reveal the extensive work of performance preparation in the way it extends over interaction turns, is open to truncation and termination, and is first and foremost an instance of projection (Schegloff, 1984; Streeck and Jordan, 2009) in line with the temporal ordering of the interactional project of the masterclass. Such work involves the temporality of different preparatory elements as each member of the masterclass works towards the collective action of performance. The analysis presented here can be seen to extend from that of Broth and Mondada (2013), who show how ‘walking away’ is an important element of turn construction and action frame transition. Broth and Keevallik (2014) show how progressive embodied activities prefigure the move from dance instruction to simultaneous dancing of a group of people. In particular they identify a verbal and embodied ‘practice projector’, a form of ‘local action directive’ (Szczepek Reed et al., 2013), that enables the coordination of collective activity. The form of analysis here is similar in that we detail the collective embodied choreography of the scene (or material ecology). Extending the ‘walking away’ examples in Broth and Mondada (2013), what we will call a ‘relinquishing move1[5_TD$IF]’ is finely designed to: (i) stand as a meaningful gesture that is produced for as long as is necessary; (ii) terminated at a strategic point (namely, after a performance onset has occurred); (iii) combined with a (pre) ‘‘gesture recovery’’ (Kendon, 2004:112)---providing embodied momentum for the relinquishing onset---and a (post) ‘‘pivot action’’ (Ju, 2011) and ‘return move’, which bring the master back to the starting point of the total movement. 2. Data and transcription The data extracts are drawn from a single masterclass interaction, involving one master, one student-singer and one piano-playing accompanist. The masterclass session is centred upon an aria written by Carl Maria von Weber entitled ‘Leise Leise fromme Weise,’ taken from the opera Der Freischütz, Op. 77, J. 277, (usually translated as The Marksman). The interaction was recorded as part of a larger project concerned with instructional interaction in music masterclasses. The extracts have been transcribed as per the Jefferson transcription system, with the addition of embodied action transcription notation inspired by Goodwin (1981) and Heath et al. (2010). A full description of the conventions deployed can be found in the Appendix. 3. Analysis overview The analysis presented here is a progressive appreciation of the master’s relinquishing move, and its sequential relationship to the production of a subsequent return move. In addition the relinquishing move is seen to follow the termination of an instruction gesture unit and is followed by an abrupt change of direction or embodied pivot.

1

The term ‘move’ is used consciously to indicate a strategic action accomplished with the body.

[(Fig._1)TD$IG]

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

33

Fig. 1. Master’s relinquishing move.

The master carries out the total movement in the masterclass. In the example used, the master is in a particular ‘participation framework’ (Goffman, 1981; Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004) with a student-singer and an accompanist. Each has different rights and responsibilities to act in line with an understanding of ‘institutional talk’ (Heritage and Clayman, 2010). In particular the master has greater rights to control the interactional arrangements and primarily instructs, while the student-singer responds to these instructions through talk and singing. The accompanist plays an interesting ‘peripheral role’ that entails a preparedness to accompany the singer, while not being instructed by and hence responsive to the master (at least in terms of the instructional content). At the same time, the student-singer is reliant upon the accompanist to provide musical context (tuning notes, rhythmic orientation, etc.) and hence any ‘performance’ by the student-singer is preceded by the pianist playing. A key consequence is a complex set of arrangements at ‘performance restarts’ that entail the projection and monitoring of upcoming actions, and the establishing of mutual regard between student-singer and pianist. The master’s relinquishing move subtly interweaves with these arrangements. The term relinquishing is used to indicate the master’s ‘giving up’ the stage, in line with the simple distinction between the instructional participation framework (master; student-singer; (pianist)) where the pianist is peripheral to the main instructional interaction, and the performance participation framework ((master); student-singer; pianist) wherein the master makes himself peripheral but present.2 However, as we will see the actual deployment of the move, it is far more fine-grained and flexible. An important point is that the transition from one action frame to another is a practical problem that crucially centres upon the timing of performance beginning. Any ‘negotiation’ should then be seen to be oriented to this outcome. It is only once this has occurred in an organised and satisfactory manner that action frame transition can be said to have occurred. In the four instances, the relinquishing and return movements are seen to function in relation to the performance preparatory movements of the pianist and student-singer. We examine how the different production and placement of the relinquishing move works in relation to the verbal action directives deployed by the master. Of particular interest is the way that the embodied relinquishing supplements a ‘non-local’ action directive in one case (underlining the local relevance and hence transforming it into a ‘local’ action directive) and supplants the issuing of a verbal action directive in another. The final extract is used to show the temporal unfolding of the activity and the opportunities for the projection of action frame transition by the pianist. In line with Broth and Mondada (2013), the methodical production of a relinquishing movement, in combination with the verbal action directive, is seen to allow for the anticipation on the part of the performers of a closing of one form of activity. However this analysis finds an extended phenomenon that functions in a complex relationship with the main activity of performance restart. In addition the specific function of the relinquishing move is shown to be flexible over the instances, such that it is deployed in different sequential positions. 3.1. Instance 1: the typical case The interaction is broken down to focus on each participant’s behaviour separately (1a--1c). This will enable us to first examine the master’s relinquishing and return move (1a), and then focus on the projective actions of the pianist (1b) and

2 There are various reasons why this is a better choice that just walking off, as is seen in some masterclass materials in the corpus collected. It enables the master to quickly intervene with further instruction.

34

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

the student-singer (1c). This presentational strategy is one way to deal with the multi-modal, and multiparty nature of the activities; in the activity itself (and by extension all social activities) such separation and simplification is unnecessary, and the scene is perceived and accomplished in toto. In addition, it is important to remain sensitive to the relational nature of the actions, wherein the multiple elements combine, complement and reinforce one-another. 1a---basic relinquishing-return movement by master Transcript 1: RT 4:55 - 5:083 [TD$INLE] 01 M:

do you want to d|o those first two phrases

M: ++++++++++++++++|*************************

((preparation; stroke))

M: at music__________________________________

((gaze at music))

02 M: down to ge|sehen• M:==========|

((gesture recovery, to home position))

M:________________ 03 S: (.)|cu(h)hm•

((clears throat))

M: ~~|~~~~~~~

((steps LF)

M: __________ 04

(--------•) M: ~~~~~~~~~

((steps RF))

M: _________ 05 P: 06 S: M:

~•|~♪~•|♪♪~•|

|♪ |[wie|nahtemir der schlummer

|~~~~|~~~~|

((plays chords)) ((sings)) ((LF in place; RF steps to P))

M: _______________________________________

The extract in transcript 1 shows directive (01--02) ‘‘do you want to do those first two phrases down to gesehen’’ spoken by the master. That it is produced to be complied with immediately (as a local action directive) is seen in the way the student-singer clears her throat in line 03 in preparation for singing, the playing of an introductory musical segment by the pianist in line 05, and the resulting onset of singing by the student-singer in line 06. Having issued the directive the master steps with his left foot (line 03) and then right foot (line 04) away from the music stand along the back of the piano, producing what we will call a relinquishing move (lines 3--4). Fig. 1 represents this visually with a series of images that correspond to the bullet points in the transcript. This move occurs simultaneously with the singer’s throat clearing (line 03) and continues through to the end of the pause (line 04), at which point the pianist begins to play.4Following the playing of the first chord of the introduction by the pianist (line 05), the master steps in place with his left foot (Fig. 2, image a), producing what Goffman (1974) would call a pivot action, and then steps back in the direction of the music stand with his right foot (line 06) (Fig. 2, image b). Fig. 2 shows a third image (c) in which the master continues to move his body while placing his right hand on his hip. This final element of the movement is produced simultaneously with the playing of the music by the pianist. The step and body sway together we will call a ‘return movement.’ In addition to the relinquishing movement we can see what Kendon (2004:112) calls a ‘gesture unit’ (Fig. 3) produced by the master to accompany the local action directive. To Kendon, a gesture unit, or ‘movement excursion’ is minimally comprised of three main elements: a ‘preparation,’ a ‘stroke’ and a ‘recovery’. ‘‘The phase of the movement excursion closest to its apex is usually recognised as the phase when the ‘expression’ of the gesture, whatever it may be, is accomplished. It is the phase of the excursion in which the moment dynamics of ‘effort’ and ‘shape’ are manifested with greatest clarity. . . This phase is called the stroke. The phase of movement leading up to

3 An adapted notation system is chosen for two primary reasons: (1) readability, and (2) the ability to denote simultaneous onsets and terminations of action. 4 The images correspond with the bullet mark in the transcription.

[(Fig._2)TD$IG]

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

35

Fig. 2. Master’s return movement.

the stroke is termed the preparation. The phase of movement that follows, as the hand is relaxed or is withdrawn, is referred to as the recovery’’ (Kendon, 2004, p.112). The gesture unit is terminated just before the end of the verbal utterance, with the hand returning to the ‘home position’ (Sacks and Schegloff, 2002) immediately preceding the onset of the relinquishing move. In this instance, and in the ones that follow, the gesture unit and its termination flow into the embodied repositioning of the relinquishing move; that is the momentum of the gesture carries over into the full body relinquishing movement. This is our basic action sequence. The relinquishing ‘move away’ follows the issuing of a verbal action directive to the singer and pianist and the termination of an instruction-oriented gesture unit. Only once the performance action frame is underway (with the pianist playing the introductory notes on the piano) does the master ‘return’ to the side of the pianist. The full sequence can be seen in the correct order (gesture unit before relinquishing move and return movement) in Fig. 4.

As the master utters ‘phrases’ (line 01), the pianist leans backwards; he continues to lean backwards in line 02, and then simultaneously with ‘gesehen’ he starts to move both hands towards the piano keyboard and his gaze to his hands. In the micro-pause just before the singer clears her throat (and simultaneous with the master’s step sideways with his left foot -Transcript 1a) (line 03), the pianist changes direction with his upper body, and starts a movement towards the piano while placing his hands on the keys of the piano. In the 0.9-s pause that follows (line 04), he continues to move his upper body

[(Fig._3)TD$IG] 36

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

Fig. 3. Master’s gesture unit.

[(Fig._4)TD$IG]

Fig. 4. Gesture unit and relinquishing move.

forwards while moving his gaze to the music during the first 0.3 s of the pause, producing an eyebrow raise (0.5 s) and a small head nod one-tenth of a second before producing the first note. It is clear that these movements progress towards the playing of the piano, and so we will call them the pianist’s ‘performance preparation’ movement. It is useful if we call the lean backwards ‘phase one’ of the performance preparation action and the lean forwards ‘phase two’ of the performance preparation action. The pianist’s preparation, phase one, combines with the master’s initial embodied movement. The forward movement of the pianist’s hands and gaze realignment in line 02 combines with an embodied lean forward in line 03; this movement forward by the pianist coincides with the movement of the master’s body

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

37

as he steps with his left foot (at the beginning of the relinquishing movement). We can see this more clearly if we combine the relevant elements of transcripts 1 and 2. But note also that if we include the hand movement in the second part of line 02, the pianist starts to move his body before the master steps away, and it is his body trunk movement forward that coincides with the master’s steps with his left foot (03).5 02 M: down to ge|sehen M:==========|

((gesture recovery, to home position))

M:________________ P: ~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~ P: _________|...h

((leans back; hands towards keys)) ((gaze moves to hands))

03 S: (.)|cu(h) hm

((clears throat))

P: ~~|~~~~~~~~

((moves body forward, hands to keys))

M: ~~|~~~~~~~~

((steps LF))

One interesting point to note here is that the movements by both the master and the pianist start before the singer clears her throat; that is before the singer receipts the verbal action directive, and indicates her intention to comply. One might expect the pianist to wait for such an indication before instigating his own preparation; later we have an instance where this preparation is terminated and transformed into a different action. In addition, this would imply that the pianist coordinates his lean forwards with the master’s actions, and not the singer’s actions.

The student-singer produces two small nods at the end of the first hearable phrasal element of the master’s utterance ‘do you want to do those first two phrases’ (line 02). Having maintained gaze alignment with the master (lines 01--03), the singer pans her gaze to the pianist in line 03 and then to the audience members in line 04, three-tenths of a second into the pause (see Fig. 5). Three-tenths of a second later, she accompanies this head movement with a full body turn finishing in the direction of the audience. The initial gaze re-alignment could be a monitoring move (although we have no particular evidence for this claim in this data). We will call the embodied onset movement (shifting of weight) while gazing at the master phase one; the pan to the pianist phase 2; and the pan to the audience phase three of the singer’s performance preparation. These first three phases of the singer’s performance preparation occur before the pianist starts to play.

5 It is an interesting aside that throughout these data, there are various choreographies of moving bodies in which they move together. This is as yet an untapped analytic resource.

[(Fig._5)TD$IG] 38

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

Fig. 5. Diagram of student-singer’s gaze alignment and performance preparation phases.

[(Fig._6)TD$IG]

Fig. 6. Master’s iconic gesture.

Only when the music has begun---with the pianist playing the first chord---does the singer move to a home position, accomplished by dropping her arms and shoulders to her side and relaxing her body (06). The final elements are a visible in-breath and a raising of the body frame immediately prior to singing. 3.1.1. Summary We can get a sense of the complex choreography of performance onset, which involves different embodied resources (talk, gaze, body movement) making up participants’ actions and their entwinement together in mutual temporal relationships (where temporal indicates some kind of stepwise ordering): 1. The master produces a verbal and embodied instruction action of directive plus gesture termination, followed by a relinquishing move, and then waits on the performance onset of the pianist to produce a return movement. 2. The pianist’s performance preparation movements commence during the verbal utterance of the master, while the singer first produces a receipt action (nods) at the end of a Turn Construction Unit (TCU) before going on to produce her own performance preparation movements.6 3. The singer’s alignment shifts from master past the pianist, to the audience (see Fig. 5) 4. The pianist’s performance onset (playing of introduction) precedes the singer’s performance onset (singing) on this occasion (see Instance 4 for an alternative). 5. The pianist’s first phase performance preparation precedes the singer’s first phase performance preparation; the pianist’s second phase performance preparation follows the first phase performance preparation of the singer. 3.2. Instance 2 -- relinquish return (in a different direction) In this second example we develop our appreciation of the choreography of the performance onset by noting the shifting relationships of the elements we have identified with the first example. Key is a noticing that the beginning of the

6

These two actions are highly proximate, occurring at either end of the word ‘phrases’.

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

39

relinquishing move of the master is produced with an instruction utterance (line 10, Transcript 4) rather than following it. We argue that this combination works to form a ‘‘local action directive’’, in that by itself the instruction utterance does not convey the imperative to ‘do this now’ in the same way as in the first example (that is, it is produced verbally as a ‘‘non-local action directive’’7[6_TD$IF]).

7 In an earlier paper the author with colleagues noted that some instructions, e.g., ‘sing with feeling,’ were not linked directly to the proceeding activities and could be heard to be relevant to some unspecified future performance instance (such as when the song is next sung, or during a public performance, etc.).

40

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

P:

|~~~~~~~~~

12 P: ♪~♪~|♪~~~~|~~ M:____ M:

|..m

((pans to music)) ((steps backwards RF, turns body to R))

|~~~~

((steps forwards LF, turns body to L))

S:~~~~| S:

((drops left arm to side)) |~~

13 S: obmond| auf seinempfadwohllacht M:

((plays)) ((gaze downwards))

M:~~~~| M:

((leans forward))

..S|___________________________

M: ~~~~~~|

((leans forward, in breath)) ((singing)) ((pans gaze to S)) ((steps forwards RF))

In that we have oriented to the different participants in the first example, here we will combine the various actions in a single transcript. The extract starts slightly earlier than the first instance with the master standing forward of the piano engaging verbally with the audience of peers. In this instance he has introduced the topic of ‘accent and emphasis’ around thirty-seconds before the extract, and he has been producing an informing about their typical qualities (that they occur on verbs and adjectives etc.). In lines 01 to 03 the master is completing an extended instructional element by topicalising the writing of the piece ‘‘so, yeah so he’s written a l-he’s written a line which has that on the highest note’’---the ‘so’ produced with emphasis turns to ‘matters at hand’ (Raymond, 2004). As he produces the utterance he moves from the audience-facing position towards the side of the musical score on the piano stand, while turning his gaze to the student-singer. The volume of his voice changes slightly (from a ‘broadcast’ volume accordant with a lecture, to an interactional volume) as he produces a self repair repetition ‘he’s written a l-he‘s written a line’. At the beginning of the extract he is holding a pen or pencil with both hands at abdomen level, during the first ‘written a line’ he releases his grip with his right hand (effectively producing a gesture preparation) and then as he repeats ‘he’s written a line,’ he mimes a writing action. The master then produces an incline-shaped gesture, during ‘‘which has that,’’ positioning the hand at the highest point of the incline with ‘highest note’ as a held gesture (03). The student-singer, who has maintained gaze alignment throughout this section, receipts the master’s utterance with ‘yeh’ (04). The master produces a downward incline gesture (more slowly and less pronounced that the upward incline) during this utterance and the following utterance ‘at that moment phrase off’. The second utterance element is produced at a reduced volume (05). This gesture is held at shoulder level in the 0.5-s pause (07) and then the hand is ‘dropped’ to the side during the singer’s ‘‘yeah’’ (08) and the subsequent 0.4-s pause. The verbal utterance by the master transitions from an account of ‘what the composer has written’ (01--03) to an instructional element (‘‘at that moment phrase off’’). In that this could be heard as a general comment about the music, the student-singer’s ‘‘yeah’’ in line 08 could also be heard as a receipt of information (rather than a receipt of an instruction). This is then the sequential context for the instructional utterance ‘so es try it that way’ (10). In line 10 we see the master produce an action directive ‘‘so-es try it that way’’ with a relinquishing movement onset--accomplished by stepping backwards and away from the music stand---while maintaining gaze alignment with the studentsinger. The pianist leans backwards during ‘try,’ producing a phase one performance preparation movement; unlike in the first instance he also pans his gaze to the music stand. The singer doesn’t move and maintains gaze alignment with the master. In the pause in line 11, the singer starts her own performance preparation move by first receipting the master’s directive with a set of small rapid head nods, and shifting her weight to her right foot (phase 1). She then pans her gaze to the pianist

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

41

and as her gaze alights on him she steps back with her left foot (phase 2). She then continues to pan her gaze to the audience orientation position (although she has her chin up, and looks to be gazing over the heads of any audience members8) (Phase 3). The complete gaze movement is faster than in the earlier example, and is more like a glance at the pianist as she moves to face the audience (for a discussion of ‘glances’ see Macbeth, 1999, and Synnott, 1992). In combination with the gaze transition to the pianist, the singer drops her left arm to her side. The pianist changes stops moving backwards (phase 1) changes direction (pivots) and then moves his hands to the keyboard (phase 2) simultaneous with the singer’s directive receipt. The singer leans forwards slightly as she glances at him, and then steps backwards. The master continues to step back and away from the music stand and pans his gaze downwards as the singer looks away as her gaze reaches the audience/forward facing position. In line 12 the pianist plays the first two notes, while the master continues the relinquishing move (stepping back and turning his body to the right) with a downward gaze alignment, and the singer continues to drop her left arm to her side. In combination with the playing of a third chord by the pianist the master pans his gaze to the music, pivots his body and begins a return movement. Following this chord, the singer pivot through a momentary home position leans forward, takes a quick in breath, and slightly raising the body frame in preparation to sing. In summary in this instance the relinquishing move coincides with an action directive (rather than following it). As with the previous instance the gesture termination occurs just before the relinquishing move, with a similar continuation of body momentum. However it is completed before the action directive is begun and the continuation into the relinquishing move is therefore aligned with the action directive. The resulting action directive relinquishing movement combination is heard to be a local action directive (‘‘do this now’’) as evidenced by the pianist’s lean back (phase 1 preparation) in line 10 and lean forward (phase 2) in line 11 with playing in line 12, alongside the singer’s receipt nods, her pan past the pianist (phase 2) towards the audience (phase 3) in line 11 (with accompanying steps and body turns), lean forward and in breath in line 12, and singing in line 13. 3.3. Instance 3 -- relinquishing move without action directive In this instance we support the claim that the relinquishing move is a meaningful action by showing an example when an action directive follows the performance preparation movement onsets of both the pianist and student-singer. This instance rests on the detailed embodied work done by the master (gesture, gaze and embodied movements), which initially stands in place of an action directive---the action directive is produced only after the onset of performance preparation by both pianist and student-singer.

8

Singers are often told to ‘sing to the back row’ which means positioning the gaze above the heads of the majority of the audience.

42

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

M: ==

((recovery, to home position))

M: .. ((to gaze downward)) S: __ 07 M: okay↑ M:=====

((recovery, to home position))

M:~~~~~

((begins step with LF sideways))

M:_____

((looking downwards))

S:~~~~~

((gaze follows M’s hand))

08

(---|---|----|-------) M:~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~ M: P:

((step LF; step RF))

|....|_______

((pans to student-singer)

|~~~~~~~~

P:

((release hug, lowers arms)) |~~~~~~~

((leans forwards))

S:____________|..a____ S:

((M; pan to audience))

|~~~~~~~

((drops hands to sides))

09 S: mm S:__ M:~~

((steps left foot))

10 M: so we |go jus right from that sp[ot 11 S:

[ye

M:*********************************** M:~~~~~~| M:

((local action directive)) ((3 points at music)) ((weight to left leg))

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|

S:______|......M_____________________ P:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 12 P: ♪~~ |♪~♪~♪~~ ♪~♪~♪ ~|~

((RL to LL then step to R)) ((A; pans to M)) ((hands to keyboard)) ((plays))

M:____|________________

((gaze down; gaze to music))

M:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

((3 steps towards piano, then weight LF then RF))

S:........_____________

((pan with M’s move to mid gaze point))

S

|~

((in breath raising body frame))

The transcript shows an utterance that occurs at the end of an instruction segment, in which the master has detailed the way that the composer has written the music so as to convey the dynamic phrasing of the piece. The utterance ‘‘so he’s written a classic melodic line in questions, starts lower ends higher’’ is a summation of the instructional content. The informing utterance is accompanied by the master looking at the music during ‘‘he’s written a classic melodic line’’ and then to the student-singer on ‘‘in questions,’’ making her the recipient of the instruction. The utterance element ‘‘starts lower ends higher’’ further describes the melodic line. It is accompanied by an iconic gesture (see Fig. 6). The master holds the iconic gesture as the singer produces a verbal ‘‘ukay’’ (line 05) and embodied (up nod) receipt, and then begins to drop both hands to his side (producing a recovery gesture phase to the home position) in the following 0.2-s pause (06) as he tilts his gaze to the floor. In line 07 as he utters ‘‘okay’’ with turn final intonation, he completes the gesture

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

43

recovery and the steps sideways with his left foot producing a relinquishing move onset. This foot step is completed in the following 1.7-s pause (08), and is followed by a step with the right foot combined with a gaze pan to student-singer. Three-tenths of a second into the pause in line 08 the pianist, who has been in a ‘self-hug’ position (both arms wrapped around the sides of his body), releases his arms and moves them downwards starting a phase 1 performance preparation movement. One second into the pause (08), he leans forward towards the piano keys (phase 2). This movement coincides with the realignment of the master’s gaze towards the singer, and as the singer begins her own performance preparation move of dropping her arms to her side and panning her gaze alignment towards the audience members. This is all accomplished without the issuing of a verbal action directive. The singer produces a minimal verbal response token (‘‘mm’’) in line 09 as the master steps with his left foot along the back of the piano, and then in the next line (10) the master produces an action directive. It is important to emphasise that he is already at the middle back of the piano. He combines the action directive ‘‘so we go jus right from that spot’’ with an action pivot---he transfers his remaining weight to the left, brings his right foot to his left foot without weight, and then steps away with his right foot back towards the music stand, producing a return movement (line 11). As he does this he produces three pointing movements towards the music with his right hand (shown with emboldened characters in the gesture notation---line 11). The singer moves from her performance position briefly (gaze towards audience, arms to side), by changing her gaze alignment to be oriented to the master and then says ‘‘ye’’ in overlap with the master’s utterance element ‘spot’. The pianist moves his hands to the piano keys. The receipt produced by the singer is followed by the master lowering his gaze and walking back towards the music stand (return movement) in time with the musical introduction played by the pianist and then turning to his left and crossing his left arm across his body as he raises his right hand to his chin as he looks at the music. The singer follows this movement with her gaze so that she simultaneously pans towards the audience members. As the last note of the musical introduction decays, she takes a quick in breath in readiness to sing. So even with the late production of a directive the total preparation movements still meet the crucial requirement for the coordination of the performance start. The total movement is subtly choreographed to bring everyone to the performance beginning at the same time (pianist and student starting to perform, master in a watching ‘performance receipting’ position). An important element of this sequence is the positioning of the pivot and return movement of the master before the pianist and student-singer have fully restarted the piece. That the issuing of the directive comes off as a confirmation of the performance preparation movements of both pianist and student-signer, should not obscure the opportunity for an alternative turn at this point. As we will see in the final example, it’s quite possible for the performance preparation movements of the pianist (and singer) to be terminated mid way through. While the typical case (seen in 3.1 and 3.2) is for the return move to follow the musical playing, in this instance it occurs just before. Hence we might say that the relinquishing move instigates performance preparation (without a verbal directive) and the actual directive-asconfirmation is positioned before the pianist starts to perform.9[7_TD$IF] Evidently the relinquishing move can be flexibly deployed. 3.4. Abandoned performance preparation by pianist In this final instance the master produces a relinquishing move, and the singer and pianist produce the initial aspects of their respective performance preparation movements. However the pianist’s performance preparation is truncated and transformed into an alternative action (a ‘self groom’ -- Lerner and Raymond, unpub.), and the singer’s preparation is stalled as the master inserts an additional instruction utterance (line 10) with ‘‘an that will’’ and ‘‘an then you want to also (.)’’, ‘‘phrase off on that so you wanna tape:r’’ (lines 10--12). The interaction does eventually proceed to a performance preparation onset (at line 15) and the master---as with the earlier examples---produces a return movement (with a pivot in line16 and a return movement line 17).

9 We have an instance in the corpus in which the pianist produces a tuning note in preparation for a sung element, but which does not lead to the student singing because the master produces an inserted instructional element.

44

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

13 S:

[yeah

M:*************************************** 14 S: kay| c'n |do that P:...|S____________ S

...|P______

15 M: °along that note P:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 16

((moves to performance position))

(----|----) P:~~~~~~~~~

((moves to performance position))

S:~~~~~~~~~

((leans forward))

M:~~~~~~~~~

((weight back on LF; turns body to left))

M:S___|..d_ 17 P: M: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 18 S:wie::::::::::::::: nahtemir der schlummer M:_________________________________________

((student-singer; pans; looks downward)) ((piano, initial chord and three notes)) ((three steps towards piano then rock r, l, r)) ((sings)) ((gaze at music))

[(Fig._7)TD$IG]

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

45

Fig. 7. Embodied choreography of master, student-singer and pianist.

The master produces the instructional directive ‘‘tch okay so we wanna sing the second one as a semi quaver’’ (04--05), which is not a clear local action directive, but is accompanied by him stepping back with his right foot, bringing his left foot to his right foot ‘in place without weight’ and then stepping sideways along the back of the piano with his left foot (i.e. a relinquishing move) that extends through the singer’s response and the pause (lines 06 to 09) (see Fig. 7). Compared to the earlier examples this relinquishing is more leisurely, the master completes two large steps---right foot (06 and 07) then left foot (08 and 09)---over a period of 2.1 s, as the singer utters low volume acknowledgement tokens (˚uh hm -- 06, and ‘ye’ -- 08). The singer’s embodied move (lines 08 and 09) coincides and works in parallel with the move of the master to the middle back of the piano (see Fig. [6_TD$IF]7, last three images). The master utters ‘‘okay’’ with rising turn final intonation (10). At the same time, the pianist moves from a disengaged position (right hand to chin, right leg crossed over left) by uncrossing his right leg and lowering his right hand to the piano keys (see Fig. 8). In this way he moves towards a performance position by repositioning his hands and feet. This movement by the pianist follows immediately upon the singer’s own movement onset---her lean occurring in parallel with the master’s movements---and not in overlap with the master’s relinquishing move onset, or indeed the action directive (instance 1), and so it is the singer who could be seen to be initiating the performance preparation movements. Unlike the other three examples (and more broadly in the majority of examples in the data set), it is not the pianist who begins to prepare for a performance onset but the singer.10[1_TD$IF] The pianist, however, moves directly to a second phase action

10 There are a number of student-singer ‘self starts’ in our data in which the student-singer initiates an action frame transition. More typically this occurs through an active performance movement (student-singer drops arms to side and takes in breath, etc.), and at particular sequential points, such as following a longer action frame transition segment, and a selfevaluation by the student-singer. The self start works as something like a self-repair, initiated through a self-evaluation (see work on initiation-response-evaluation---for example, Mehan, 1979).

[(Fig._8)TD$IG] 46

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

Fig. 8. Pianist’s pivot action.

(movement towards piano), and so brings his actions in line with the typical ordering, in which second phase actions of the pianist follow preparation onset by the student-singer. He catches up, if you like. However, as the master utters ‘‘an that will’’ (line 10), following the first word the pianist moves his left hand to his nose, as though scratching it. We have tried to show this subtle move in the following ‘‘zoomed in’’ version (Fig. 8). The sense is that the leg uncross and right arm lowering could accountably be preparatory for the nose scratch (rather than a move towards a performance position). We argue that this is a pivot action,11 in which the pianist---anticipating a potential performance onset instigated by they master’s utterance---starts to move into a performance start position during ‘‘okay↑’’ (produced by the master as a potential turn final element with a rising intonation) and the micro pause that follows; but then realising that the master is continuing to talk, produces a non-accountable self groom (in this case a nose scratch). This abandoned performance preparation movement of the pianist points up a number of interesting issues: First, it shows that the pianist is monitoring the ongoing actions by the master (and student-singer) for potential upcoming performance onsets. Second, it shows that he is able to make preparatory moves, so that he would be in the active performance position if called upon to act. Third it shows that these preparation movements are divert-able; while starting as one action it is possible to transform it into another action. Fourth, that it is necessary (or preferable) to transform this action into a non-preparatory move points to the collective negotiation of the performance onset; it matters that the pianist shows that is prepared to act but also prepared to stop---he is responsive to the scene and communicates this through his embodied actions. All of these issues point to the embodied choreography of the scene. 4. Discussion A key question with masterclass interaction is how the actors transition from sequentially organised instructional interaction (oriented to actions and activities like ‘informing,’ ‘instructing,’ ‘evaluating’ and the like) to simultaneous forms of collective activity (performing together through playing and singing for example12). In one sense this paper is oriented to the furthering of the study of ‘simultaneity’ in multimodal interaction, which is an under investigated feature (Mondada, 2011, p. 207). The collective coordination of performance beginning, and hence the transition from ‘instruction’ as an action frame to ‘performance’ as an action frame, is premised upon various ‘projection resources’ (Streeck and Jordan, 2009). Plainly the issuing of a ‘local’ action directive oriented to performance (‘‘do this now’’) is a key projective resource that instigates a series of preparatory actions on the part of the performers. One common element within these preparatory aspects, and one that is also characterised by its projective features, is the relinquishing move produced by the master. The gross underpinning of the relinquishing move (and the reason for its naming this way) is the observation that the two ‘participation frameworks’ of instruction and performance involve different sets of actors in different spatial 11 Pivot actions are often associated with more comical or embarrassing behaviours. Raymond gives the example---based on Goffman -- of a person starting to wave, but then transforming the gesture into a self grooming hair stroke when they realise they are have misidentified the recipient of the action (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UppMDKtu9M). See also Lerner and Raymond (unpublished). 12 Arguably, such simultaneous forms of activity wholly rely on sequentially structured elements from the playing of an introductory stanza a pianist leading to a phrase sung by the singer, to the ‘interactional’ buzz of the experience of singing to an audience.

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

47

arrangements: ‘Instruction’ is primarily between master and student, while ‘performance’ is primarily between performer and audience.13 The ‘relinquishing’ of both the interaction and space by the master, then, has both a logical and interactional foundation in that it entails the movement of the master out of what will become the performance space. The current analysis is premised upon the analytic noticing of such movements in a number of masterclasses in our corpus. The current analysis however realises that this logical movement is deployed to do more sophisticated work. ‘Doing relinquishing’ is identified in the data as a meaningful action, gesture or what we term ‘a move’. Of course we mean this ‘move’ to be understood as an interactional achievement and do not see it as somehow preceding the activities of doing. Yet, we would argue, it is deployed and ‘seen’ as an interactionally construed semiotically available embodied movement. What’s more (and what’s more interesting perhaps) is that it is produced sequentially to have a phrase-like shape, not dissimilar to a gesture (Kendon, 2004). Not only is it preceded by a gesture termination, but it is followed by a pivot action and movement back (what we have termed ‘a return movement’). The move is shaped by these pre and post movements. In relation to this second aspect, it is seeable as ‘a move’ precisely because it is done, and then undone (in a similar way to the manner in which an up gesture is seeable in relation to a down gesture). Practically, the doing of a relinquishing move followed by a return movement allows the master to communicate the finality of the instruction while also taking up a position that allows for observation of the performance, and if necessary the interruption of the performance.14 The four instances progressively detail the relinquishing move and its flexible deployment. The three main examples are: (1) an instance of a relinquishing move following a verbal action direction; (2) a relinquishing move as part of a verbal action directive; and (3) a relinquishing move preceding an action directive. To these we added a fourth instance that showed up the productional progression, and resulting opportunity for termination and transformation of the action. In all our examples, the relinquishing movement by the master follows a gesture termination, whether that be as part of an action directive (instance 1), as part of an instruction and informing preceding an action directive relinquishing move combination (instance 2) or as simply preceding a relinquishing move without an action directive (instance 3). The linkage between gesture production and relinquishing move were a matter of momentum and energy transfer, in the sense that they are one continuous movement, using different aspects of the body (hands, then trunk then feet). We have used this appreciation of the individual sequence of action production to reveal the interactional ‘multiactivities’ (Mondada, 2011, p. 207) of the scene. We identified different phases for each participant as a means to show how these interweave in the on-going interaction. The key finding is the noticing that the master’s return move is produced after the onset of performance preparation. In the first instance this occurs after the pianist starts to perform (by playing the first notes) and before the student-singer starts to sing (Transcript 1, lines 05 and 06). The same can be said for instance 2, with the master completing the relinquishing move and then pivoting to the return movement in line 12 of Transcript 4. In instance 3 we get a slightly different positioning of the pivot during the later local action directive (lines 10 and 11), but this follows the onset of both the pianist’s and student-singer’s preparation movements. In this instance the master does not wait for the performance start of the pianist, the later issuing of the directive instead becomes the context for the pivot with the return movement produced during the chords played by the pianist. Similarly in the fourth example, when the master inserts an addition instructional utterance, the production of the pivot movement by the master (a change of weight that turns the body back towards the piano music) occurs before the pianist begins to play but after both the pianist and student-singer have begun their performance preparation movements. Again in this final instance the return movement is of the master is produced simultaneously with the pianist’s initial playing. The relinquishing move is finely organised in relation to the performance preparation of the pianist and student-singer. In particular it is produced to be proximate to the pianist’s performance onset; in two of our four instances it is terminated with a pivot following the successful action frame transition, in two it is truncated with a pivot just before the action frame transition. The return movement always accompanies the performance actions. Our argument then is that the relinquishing action is a ‘move’ that is produced precisely to be seen as a movement away from the performance participatory frame, a movement out of the instructional working space; It makes conditionally relevant a performance onset and once this transition is substantially underway either indicated by an embodied commitment to play or actual playing, the ‘move’ is repealed.

13

In fact performance (in this case a singer; in other cases one or more instrumentalists) includes the potential for the involvement of a peripheral and potential co-performer (the accompanist) and engagement with an onlooking audience of student peers. The spatial arrangements vary but basically alternate between face to face engagement between student and master as though in a classroom or practice room, and more lecturelike engagement between master and audience. ‘Performance’ is primarily between student (in this case a singer) and audience, accompanied by the pianist, with the potential for the master to transition to and from pseudo audience member. The spatial arrangements are more akin to a stage with performer facing towards the collective audience of peers. 14 Interruptions are common in master classes after the first full performance---see Szczepek Reed et al. (2013).

48

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

5. Conclusion This paper has presented a progressive understanding of a particular phenomenon of the interaction within the music masterclass, the relinquishing move. This move was situated in relation to the transition from instructional matters to performance and was shown to be a resource for projecting and precisely coordinating this transition. It was seen to be a ‘move’ that found its logic in the practical differences between the two kinds of collective activity (understood as different action frames or participation frameworks), and its skilled sequential placement within on-going interaction. While the analysis of the relinquishing move foregrounded the relationship between the master’s actions and those of the pianist and student-singer, it also revealed various other interactional orderings that we have not had time to develop and deepen. Clearly the phases of the preparatory behaviours of both the pianist and student-singer exhibit an interrelationship borne of the need to ensure collective frame transition (a situation that becomes more important as the pianist’s ‘introduction’ gets shorter -- as when a tuning note is the only preparatory contribution). This will be the focus of future analysis. The current analysis fits with on-going interests in embodied action in instructional settings, as well a broader concern with multimodality and simultaneous behaviours and actions. The paper hopes to contribute to the understanding of subtle embodied actions and interaction and how they are produced in finely ordered behaviours. In particular it adds to those understandings of the participation framework that foreground the locally instantiated, emergent, and embodied character of the phenomenon (Goodwin and Goodwin, 2004; Sidnell, 2009). In this way it contributes to the development of a key concept in pragmatics[2_TD$IF]. Appendix A Transcription notation The transcription notation and system used is adapted from Jefferson and Heath et al. (2010). It replaces numerical pauses lengths with a graphical representation so as to allow for clear population of the pauses with simultaneous actions. In addition graphical notation (as opposed to descriptive notation) is preference in line with the verbal utterance line, while a description is offered in the right-justified double parentheses. (-----) ++++ ***** ==== ^^^^ ~~~ _____ ... [ | • ♪

pause, length indicated in tenths of a second gesture preparation gesture stroke(with emphasis in bold) gesture recovery held gesture action, aligned with vocal utterance gaze alignment gaze pan overlap timing point, relating to aligned point in action line musical note onset (percussive)

image capture point

|~~~~|~~~~~

((action 1; action 2))

description of sequential actions

|~~~~~~~~~~

((action 1, action 2))

description of simultaneous actions

References Broth, Mathias, Keevallik, Leelo, 2014. Getting ready to move as a couple: accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class. Space Cult. 17 (2), 107--121. Broth, Mathias, Mondada, Lorenza, 2013. Walking away: the embodied achievement of activity closings in mobile interaction. J. Pragmatics 47 (1), 41--58. Garfinkel, H., Rawls, A.W., 2002. Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkeim’s Aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield, Oxford, UK. Goffman, Erving, 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Goffman, E., 1981. Footing. In: Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 124--159. Goodwin, Charles, 1981. Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press, New York. Goodwin, Charles, Goodwin, Harness Marjorie, 1987. Concurrent operations on talk: notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics 1 (1), 1--54. Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M.H., 2004. Participation. In: Duranti, A. (Ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 222--243.

D.J. Reed / Journal of Pragmatics 89 (2015) 31--49

49

Haviland, John B., 2011. Musical spaces. In: Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., LeBaron, C. (Eds.), Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 289--304. Heath, Christian, Hindmarsh, Jon, Luff, Paul, 2010. Video in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications Ltd., London. Heritage, John, Clayman, Steven, 2010. Talk in Action. Interactions Identities, and Institutions. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Ju, Hee, 2011. Collaborative unit construction in Korean: pivot turns. Crossroads Lang. Interact. Cult. 8 (1). Kendon, Adam, 2004. Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Lerner, Gene H., Raymond, Geoffrey. On the practical re-intentionalization of action in interaction: Midcourse pivots in the progressive realization of manual action. Enabling Human Conduct: Naturalistic Studies of Talk-in-interaction in Honor of Emanuel A. Schegloff. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (unpublished). Macbeth, D., 1999. Glances, trances, and their relevance for a visual sociology. In: Jalbert, P. (Ed.), Media Studies: Ethnomethodological Approaches. University Press of America, Lanham, NY, Oxford, pp. 135--170. McIlvenny, Paul, Broth, Mathias, Haddington, Pentti, 2014. Moving together: mobile formations in interaction. Space Cult. 17 (2), 104--106. Mehan, Hugh, 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Mondada, Lorenza, 2011. The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations. In: Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., LeBaron, C. (Eds.), Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World. pp. 207--226. Nishizaka, Aug, 2006. What to learn: the embodied structure of the environment. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 39 (2), 119--154. Raymond, Geoffrey, 2004. Prompting action: the stand-alone ‘‘so’’ in ordinary conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 37 (2), 185--218. Reed, Darren, Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, 2013. Building an interactional project: actions as components of music masterclasses. In: Szczepek Reed, B., Raymond, G. (Eds.), Units of Talk---Units of Action. John Benjamins, pp. 313--342. Reed, Darren J., Szczepek Reed, Beatric, 2014. Topicalizing learnables in music masterclasses. Social Semiot. 24 (4). Robinson, Jeffrey D., 2003. An interactional structure of medical activities during acute visits and its implications for patients’ participation. Health Commun. 15 (1), 27--59. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A., 2002. Home position. Gesture 2 (2), 133--146. Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1984. On some gestures’ relation to talk. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 266--296. Sidnell, J., 2009. Participation. In: Vershueren, J., Ostman, J., D’hondt, S. (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction. John Benjamins, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, pp. 125--156. Streeck, Jurgan, Jordan, Scott J., 2009. Projection and anticipation: the forward-looking nature of embodied communication. Discourse Processes 46, 93--102. Streeck, Jurgen, Goodwin, Charles, LeBaron, Curtis, 2013. Embodied interaction in the material world: an introduction. In: Streeck, Jurgen, Goodwin, Charles, LeBaron, Curtis (Eds.), Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp. 1--28. Synnott, A., 1992. The eye and I: a sociology of sight. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 5 (4), 617--636. Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Reed, Darren, Haddon, Liz, 2013. NOW or NOT NOW: coordinating restarts in vocal masterclasses. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46 (1). Tolins, Jackson, 2013. Assessment and direction through nonlexical vocalizations in music instruction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46 (1), 47--64. Weeks, Peter, 1996. Synchrony lost, synchrony regained: the achievement of musical co-ordination. Hum. Stud. 19 (2), 199--228.