Instructing embodied knowledge.
Multimodal approaches to interactive practices for knowledge constitution
Oliver Ehmer (University of Freiburg), email@example.com
Geert Brône (University of Leuven), firstname.lastname@example.org
For publication in Linguistics Vanguard. Introduction to the Special Issue.
Draft version 22.1.2021. Please do not quote.
1 The transfer of practical knowledge
The acquisition of knowledge, both conceptual and practical, is the cornerstone of all types of instruc-
tion, and in fact of societal dynamics as a whole.
Apart from the study of the product of acquisition,
i.e. demonstratable knowledge, uncovering the dynamic processes through which this knowledge is
passed on can provide valuable insights into (collaborative) instructional practices as well. In fact, re-
cent work in conversation analysis, interactional linguistics and sociology has focused on the acquisi-
tion and transfer of practical knowledge (e.g. knowledge related to the body, to movement and to
'doing things' understood as skills), zooming in on the intrinsically social nature of these activities.
Based on the empirical analysis of various instructional settings, it has been demonstrated that partic-
ipants interact and collaboratively organize the transmission, acquisition and constitution of
knowledge using different verbal and nonverbal resources. Among&the&phenomena&that&have&been&
studied&are&music&(Haviland 2007; Reed and Szczepek Reed 2013; Szczepek Reed et al. 2013; Reed and
Szczepek Reed 2014; Reed 2015; Sambre and Feyaerts 2017; Stevanovic 2017; Reed 2019), dance
(Müller and Bohle 2007; Keevallik 2010; Kolter et al. 2012; Müller and Ladewig 2013; Broth and
Keevallik 2014; Keevallik 2014b; 2015; Evola and Skubisz 2019), sports (Okada 2013; Evans and
Reynolds 2016; Evans and Fitzgerald 2017; von Wedelstaedt and Singh 2017; Singh 2019; Keevallik
2020), self-defense and martial arts (Schindler 2011; Stukenbrock 2014a; Schindler 2016; Stukenbrock
2017; Råman and Haddington 2018; Råman 2019), driving and flying (Melander and Sahlström 2009;
De Stefani and Gazin 2014; Levin et al. 2017; Deppermann 2018a; c; Mondada 2018; Helmer 2021),
cooking (Mondada 2014a; Raevaara 2017), handicraft (Lindwall and Ekström 2012; Heinemann and
Möller 2015), dentistry (Hindmarsh et al. 2011; Rystedt et al. 2013; Hindmarsh et al. 2014; Lindwall
and Lymer 2014), surgery (Bezemer et al. 2011; Mondada 2014c; b; e; d; Zemel and Koschmann 2014),
vocational training (Filliettaz 2007; Filliettaz et al. 2010) and visits in museums (Kesselheim 2012).
When dealing with practical knowledge, a key feature to be taken into account is that much of this
knowledge is bound to the body, and may therefore be implicit (Ryle 1949; Fuchs 2012) rather than of
an explicit conceptual nature that can be easily verbalized (see section 2 below). As a consequence,
instructors frequently rely on elaborate multimodal practices, for instance, bodily demonstrations or
simulations of the activity at stake (Goffman 1986 ; Clark and Gerrig 1990; Streeck 2009; Putzier
We thus understand instruction as the 'practice(s) of teaching'. Besides this understanding of instruction being 'educa-
tion', Lindwall et al. (2015) further distinguish two other understandings, namely instruction referring to 'directives' and
instructions as 'written manuals, recipes and guidebooks'.
2012; Müller 2014; cf. also Clark 2016b). Demonstrations are usually not simple ‘nonverbal’ perfor-
mances or displays of the knowledge to be transferred, but highly structured social activities of sharing
and distributing conceptual knowledge adjusted to their instructional purpose. Apart from demonstra-
tions, instructors obviously also rely on other practices like, corrections and different kinds of direc-
tives. It is common to those practices that bodily and verbal resources are tightly coordinated to build
multimodal gestalts (Mondada 2019), e.g. holistic patterns with a temporal structure involving differ-
ent semiotic resources that are possibly coordinated across participants. In addition, since instructions
of embodied knowledge are not only bound to the body and space but also to time, systematic pat-
terns can be observed on different scales, ranging from the micro-timing of different modalities on the
level of single utterances up to large sequential and interactional patterns.
Next to a social-interactional approach to practical, embodied knowledge, other views on embodiment
and/in language have been proposed, which may generate valuable insights into the processes of in-
struction as well. A major strand in cognitive science, for instance, deals with the foundations and
ramifications of embodied cognition (Clark 1997; Lakoff and Johnson 1999; Pecher and Zwaan 2005;
Clark 2016a). This view holds that many aspects of (human) cognition are embodied in the sense that
they are rooted in and dependent on the cognizer’s physical body. In linguistics, this has been demon-
strated in the large body of research on metaphor and image schemas, which has its roots in early
work by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (Lakoff and Johnson 1980; Johnson 1987; 2018). What the
significant body of research on this topic has shown is that much of abstract thinking and abstract
linguistic knowledge depends on corporeal experience. In fact, it remains an open question, whether
abstract conceptual knowledge can be fully separated from practical knowledge, given the strong in-
terrelatedness between the two. In addition, instructional activities oft aim at making the implicit more
explicit and at transforming the practical into conceptual knowledge. Furthermore, there one can as-
sume further layers of knowledge that are not directly accessible, e.g. knowledge about, for instance
how a certain s type of dance usually looks like, the history of it, the positions and roles participants
take on etc. In the case of the embodied practical knowledge, we zoom in on here, however, the
relationship between the body and ‘knowing’ is more direct, and in this sense, it may be interesting to
explore the relationship between preconceptual experience, embodied cognition and embodied
This thematic issue on Instructing embodied knowledge presents a collection of concise empirical stud-
ies – very much in the spirit of the Linguistics Vanguard journal – that illustrate the ongoing work on
the construction, transfer and communication of practical knowledge. Although these contributions
are informed by different theoretical and methodological frameworks, including the ones mentioned
above, they are united in a common focus on the intrinsic multimodal nature of these activities, com-
bining linguistic descriptions and bodily-spatial analyses. Taken together, these studies provide an
overview of recurrent questions, challenges, commonalities and differences in the different ap-
proaches to embodied instruction. This introduction serves to situate these approaches and highlight
the particular focus of the individual contributions. In the next section, we discuss some of the chal-
lenges related to (the instruction of) embodied knowledge, on the basis of which we formulate a set
of key questions that guide the contributions to this special issue, but arguably also much of the re-
search on this topic as a whole (section 3). In section 4, we briefly describe how the individual contri-
butions relate to these key questions and formulate the main results of these studies.
2 Embodied knowledge in (inter)action
As we mentioned above, it is a widely held position that a large body of knowledge is tacit. This idea is
captured in Polanyi’s well-known quote “We know more than we can tell” (Polanyi 1966). By distin-
guishing between knowing and telling, a binary opposition is created that is reflected in numerous
works, including studies on embodied knowledge:
• Tacit knowing vs. explicit knowledge (Polanyi 1966).
• Knowledge by acquaintance vs. knowledge by description (Russell 1910–1911)
• Knowing that vs. knowing how (Ryle 1949)
• Implicit vs. explicit memory (Schacter 1987)
• Practical/performative vs. semantic knowledge (Wulf et al. 2001; Foppa 2002)
• Procedural vs. declarative knowledge (Engelkamp and Zimmer 2006; Anderson 2007)
When applying such oppositions to the type of ‘embodied knowledge’ that is central to the present
thematic issue, it is apparent that we are dealing with knowledge that needs to be enacted by the lived
body in order to be accessible in the interaction (be it in dance, instrument playing, singing, sports or
any other type) and in this sense defies its separation from that same body as its original habitat. In
other words, it is a form of knowledge that is non-representational in the sense that it can only be
partly ‘represented’ at the conceptual level (cf. declarative/semantic knowledge) without resorting to
the lived body: ‘the knower’ and ‘the known’ are inseparably intertwined. This basic characteristic of
embodied knowledge can be related, at least in part, to its holistic character, meaning that different
modalities of perception and experience are integrated with each other to build ‘gestalts’. In other
words, we are dealing with "forms of knowing that are based on intermodal and sensorimotor gestalt
units, that means, they integrate different sense modalities and bodily movements into a holistic ex-
perience" (Fuchs 2016). Important to note, these gestalts usually exhibit a particular temporal or pro-
cedural structure, in which the different interacting resources may be guided or constrained by differ-
ent temporalities (Deppermann and Günthner 2015; Deppermann and Streeck 2018; Mondada 2019).
That is to say, certain (non-)verbal actions tend to occur simultaneously whereas other actions occur
prior to others, thus projecting and somehow constraining the appearance of a following action in the
gestalt. In other words, the integration of different modalities as part of a holistic structure does not
presuppose strict simultaneity. In addition, embodied knowledge does not only pertain to individual
actions performed by individual bodies, but in many cases is also inextricably bound to bodily actions
by others. The notion of intercorporeality, which was coined by Merleau-Ponty (1945; 1964), has re-
cently received increasing attention in research on social cognition and embodied interaction (Tanaka
2015; Meyer et al. 2017). It highlights the grounding of intersubjectivity in the bodily presence of self
and other(s), thus providing a framework for the analysis of the bodily nature of social interaction.
Of course, such binary distinctions between types of knowledge – e.g. knowing that and knowing how
– should be interpreted as cover terms for highly diverse fields of knowledge. Regarding body
knowledge, several suggestions have been made to systematize different forms of knowledge. (cf.
Casey 2000; Fuchs 2017). Fuchs (2012) distinguishes six forms of memory of the body: procedural,
situational, intercorporeal, incorporative pain and traumatic memory. Procedural memory arguably is
the kind of body knowledge that is most often referred to, since it comprises "patterned sequences of
movement, well-practiced habits, skillful handling of instruments, as well as familiarity with patterns
of perception" (Fuchs 2012). It is also this kind of knowledge that is most subject to explicit instruc-
tional activities. It is important to note that Fuchs does not only include the bodily actions into the
notion of body knowledge but also different kinds and patterns of perception. From an interactional
perspective, the importance of perception in practices has been highlighted by Charles Goodwin (1994;
2001; 2003) in his work on professional vision (Nishizaka 2017; cf. Melander 2018). But of course, be-
sides seeing, other kinds of perception like smelling, tasting and feeling may form an integral part of
social practices and the respective body of knowledge (Nishizaka 2011; 2014; Jenkings 2017; Mondada
2019; 2020). In instructing body knowledge, the perceptive dimension deserves particular attention,
since the instructors face the task to instruct these aspects as well.
The largely procedural and intercorporeal nature of embodied knowledge is a particular challenge for
linguists aiming at a systematic analysis of embodied interaction. How can linguists deal with infor-
mation that we can generally not express by speaking? In fact, when looking at the literature on the
transmission of embodied knowledge, we find notions such as “stumme Weitergabe” ‘tacit transmis-
sion’ (Schmidt 2008) and 'unvoluntary exhibition during performance' (Schindler 2011) to characterize
the process. Some authors even characterize certain kinds of performative knowledge as something
“das nicht sprachlich übermittelt, sondern nur am eigenen Leibe erfahren werden kann” (‘that cannot
be transmitted through language, but rather only experienced through one's own body’) (Fischer-
Lichte 1999). One particular locus of investigation that may be of interest to linguists is the acquisition
and transfer of embodied knowledge, for instance in teaching, training and/or coaching situations,
because this setting often requires forms of (verbal) explicitation or demonstration of the knowledge
to be transmitted and acquired. What emerges is an interesting tradeoff (or tension) between two
major ways of acquiring embodied knowledge: implicit “learning by doing” and experiencing on the
one hand and explicit “learning by synthesizing” on the other. An interactional-linguistic account may
provide valuable insights into the relationship between these learning/teaching processes by ap-
proaching the construction and instruction of embodied knowledge as (i) a social activity, (ii) involving
the deployment of different semiotic resources, and (iii) using different techniques and devices for the
communication of knowledge.
Studying the instruction of embodied knowledge as a social activity implies a focus on the collaborative
organization of the ‘learning activity’, as has been shown among others in the context of driving in-
struction, dance instruction, dentistry training, surgery training, self-defense trainingand martial arts
training sessions, among many others (for references see introduction above) . It is argued, that in-
struction in those contexts is organized by communicative practices. Following Deppermann et al.
(2016) the notion of (communicative) practice highlights the materiality of the communicative situa-
tion and the use of multimodal resources in gestalt like patterns with a temporal structure. Further-
more, practices are typically related to certain participation frameworks (e.g. instructor(s) and learn-
ers) and social actions (e.g. correction, request, assessment). Practices are routinized patterns that are
reflexively bound to contexts, due to their indexical nature. In addition, practices are typically bound
to certain historical contexts. It has also been shown that practices may not only be domain specific
but also tend to occur across settings to which they are then adapted (a.o. Stukenbrock 2014b).
Second, adopting a multimodal perspective on this activity requires all different semiotic resources to
be treated on a par, including gesture, posture and eye gaze (cf. Filliettaz 2007; Nishizaka 2007; San
Diego et al. 2009; Nishizaka 2011; Arnold 2012; Nishizaka 2018). Taking into account the above-men-
tioned tradeoff/tension between verbal explicitation and implicit learning by doing, a multimodal ap-
proach is particularly interested in the tight temporal coordination of bodily and verbal resources in
instructional sequences. This coordination can be studied at the micro-level of single utterances as
well larger sequential-interactional patterns (Keevallik 2013; Reed and Szczepek Reed 2013; Szczepek
Reed et al. 2013; Broth and Keevallik 2014; Mondada 2014b; Keevallik 2015; Levin et al. 2017).
And thirdly, apart from the social and multimodal nature of the activities at hand, research on the
instruction of embodied knowledge needs to zoom in on the techniques and devices that are used.
These include descriptions (as a form of explicitation), directives (which can be verbal as well as non-
verbal) (Rauniomaa 2017; Stevanovic 2017; De Stefani 2018; Deppermann 2018b; Okada 2018),
demonstrations (Goffman 1986 ; Mondada 2011; Putzier 2012; Keevallik 2013; Rystedt et al.
2013; Keevallik 2014b; Putzier 2016; Råman 2019; Evans and Lindwall 2020), related concepts such as
depictions, simulations and iconic representations (Hindmarsh et al. 2014; Clark 2016b), the use of
embodied metaphors (Kolter et al. 2012; Müller and Ladewig 2013; Müller 2014), the creation of mul-
timodal viewpoints (Sambre and Feyaerts 2017 ), correction techniques and assessments (Weeks 1996;
Keevallik 2010; Muntanyola-Saura 2015; Evans and Reynolds 2016; Evans 2017; Levin et al. 2017), the
use of voice (Keevallik 2019), and on the learner's side for instance practices of displaying understand-
ing (Hindmarsh et al. 2011), the involvement in joint imagination (Nishizaka 2003; Keevallik 2014a;
Stukenbrock 2014a; 2017; von Wedelstaedt and Singh 2017), etc.
3 Key questions
Based on the brief orientation sketched above, which has shown that the instruction of embodied
knowledge may be of interest to several (sub)disciplines, we can identify a set of key questions that
may help to shape the discussion. The contributions to this special issue address (and hopefully help
to answer) some of these questions, but we hope that they may also serve as a ‘mission statement‘
for research on this topic, shaping the agenda for future studies as well. In general, the questions can
be clustered in three groups. A first set of question deals with the way in which instructions are con-
strued, both in terms of the semiotic resources involved and the temporal-sequential organization. A
second set focuses on demonstrations as a central practice and the potentially interesting relation
between demonstration, rehearsal and actual performance. A third and final set reflects on the rela-
tionship between perceptual access, sensation and the acquisition of embodied knowledge.
Multimodality, Temporality and Context in Instructions
• How are demonstrations and other kinds of instructions organized in time at different levels
of granularity/within units of different sizes (utterance, sequence, phase)?
• What is the relationship between the verbal and the bodily level in instructional interaction?
For example, which verbal, vocal and nonverbal resources are used and which are their func-
tional profiles? How are descriptive, iconic and deictic resources combined and alternated?
For example, can a nonverbal depiction ‘take over from’ a purely verbal description? Which
aspects of meaning does the verbal level ‘add’ to a bodily demonstration?
• Can we find ‘multimodal gestalts’ in instructions, e.g. relatively stable patterns that are con-
stant over different contexts? How are such patterns adapted to, for example, different
skills/activities, participation formats and group sizes?
Demonstration, Rehearsal, and Actual Performance in Instructional Settings
• How can we capture the continuum between the demonstration/simulation of an activity and
its actual performance/doing? E.g. the difference between demonstrating a dance step, prac-
ticing this step and actually dancing.
• To what extent are such differences interactionally relevant for the participants involved? Do
participants signal (gradual) differences between demonstrations and actual doings of an ac-
tivity in interaction?
• Can demonstrations be realized collaboratively, e.g. as multimodal co-constructions? And if
so, which are the roles of the two demonstrators?
Seeing, Experiencing, and Knowing in Instructions
• What is the relation between seeing and doing in instructional settings? As part of the instruc-
tional interaction, students/learners often first see the demonstration at hand. How is the vis-
ually accessible information structured verbally?
• How do instructors distinguish between visible or otherwise perceptible skills, and communi-
cate sensations and experiences that are not visibly accessible, like body internal sensations,
intercorporeal sensations, haptic sensations, sound and music qualities and tastes? How is the
acquisition of professional perception accomplished?
• How is an increase of knowledge reflected in such activities? How can we provide interactional
evidence of the learning effect of such practices? How do instructors adapt their interventions
due to (non-)progressions in ‘knowing’? Which are the implications that can be drawn for im-
proving the transmission of embodied knowledge?
Important to note is that cutting across these sets of questions, there is an ongoing discussion on ter-
minological and conceptual distinctions relating to embodied knowledge. The papers in this special
issue contribute to this discussion and, reflecting the different perspectives we have collected on the
phenomenon, represent -sometimes radically- different positions. For instance, in the questions
above, we have resorted to concepts such as demonstrations, depictions, simulations and iconic rep-
resentations, which roughly refer to the same (set of) phenomena but may differ in scope or definition,
depending on the particular theoretical framework in which they are used. Rather than trying to re-
solve the terminological confusion in this introduction, which would warrant a contribution of its own,
or take a stance in the discussion, which would go against the broad spectrum we aim to present, we
refer the reader to the individual papers for further discussion. We present the key ideas of these
contributions in the following section.
4. Contributions to the special issue
Setting the scene, the opening paper of the issue distinguishes between different kinds of learnables
in instructing embodied knowledge (Szczepek Reed). A first set of papers deals with different practices
of demonstration or depiction (Hsu, Brône and Feyaerts; Keevallik; Ehmer; Singh). The second set of
papers focuses on more conceptual practices, making use of concepts like image schemas, metaphors
and metonymy (Sambre; Stevanovic). The issue concludes with two papers that widen the scope and
deal with the role of experience and epistemic access in gaining, instructing and sharing knowledge
(Reed; Kesselheim and Brandenberger)
Beatrice Szczepek Reed distinguishes two kinds of 'learning goals' or 'learnables' in vocal master-
classes. While body-focused learnables concern physical skills, concept-focused learnables concern
mental processes and concepts. While the author acknowledges that all learnables in musical classes
are both conceptualized and embodied, she shows that the two mentioned learnables are instructed
differently. In the instruction of body-focused learnables the body itself is oriented to as the 'place
where the desired action originates', by using for examples visual access to the student’s body, touch
and material objects as interactional resources. Concept-focused instructions are instructed though
the body as well but the body plays a similar role as in much of human interaction, and it is used as a
vehicle for communicating 'invisible processes'. Resources employed here are for example depictions
of 'to-be-imagined' mental states and explicit lexical references to concepts.
Hui-Chieh Hsu, Geert Brône & Kurt Feyaerts use the concept of depiction, as it was recently spelled
out in Clark's Staging Theory (2016), to zoom in on instructional sequences in which meaning is com-
municated by resorting to nonverbal rather than verbal resources. More specifically, they single out
the phenomenon of speech-embedded nonverbal depictions (Hsu et al. 2021), which revolves around
the staging of physical scenes, using gestures, facial expressions, vocalizations, gaze, etc. for others to
imagine the scene depicted. Based on instances collected in cello master classes, they discuss patterns
of multimodal iteration, where roughly the same meaning is communicated multiple times (possibly
for instructional purposes), using different semiotic resources and/or signaling methods. It is shown
how this phenomenon can be treated using insights from dialogic syntax (Du Bois 2014), a model de-
veloped for the analysis of parallelisms and affinities across turns in conversation.
Leelo Keevallik analyzes the role of vocalizations in the instruction of bodily skills in the particular
context of jazz dance teaching. Using sequences of multiperson interaction, involving a teacher work-
ing with a large group of students, she shows that vocal resources other than entrenched (lexical)
symbols can be used to express simultaneous body movement. Vocalizations present an interesting
case for the emergent nature of meaning, arising in and as part of the interaction, and conveying in-
dexical, embodied and sensory rather than conventionalized information. At a methodological level,
she argues that Conversation Analysis provides a suitable framework for the analysis of the transfer of
embodied knowledge in (inter)action.
Oliver Ehmer focuses on demonstrations as a resource for instructing embodied knowledge. The au-
thor highlights the fact that demonstrations are social activities in which not only the instructor but
also the learners may participate. He zooms in on one way of co-participation, namely students syn-
chronizing with the actions of instructor. Based on a corpus of dance classes in Argentine Tango two
distinct practices of synchronization in demonstrations are analyzed. In ‘orchestrated synchroniza-
tions’ the instructors actively pursue the student's synchronization, which typically happens for the
instruction of new knowledge. In ‘emergent synchronizations’, in contrast, the instructor rather invites
than requests the students’ synchronization, a practice which is typically used to realize corrections.
The two practices of synchronization, the author argues, should be considered as prototypes with pos-
sible transitions along a continuum, constituted by various criteria such as timing, bodily-spatial for-
mation, and direction of synchronization.
Ajit Singh approaches the question how embodied knowledge is socially mediated and communica-
tively constructed by studying embodied action plans in training sessions in trampolining. Action
plans can be understood as the embodied equivalent of projections as described in Conversation
Analysis for talk-in-interaction, referring to complex embodied practices through which actors pre-
pare and coordinate further actions, in a way that is observable and thus rooted in a social and com-
municative project. The sequential analysis of a longer exercise unit in trampoline training shows
how these embodied action plans are used by both athletes and coaches for instructing, by making
use of pre-enactments (i.e. demonstrations), relevant for the subsequent performance of an exer-
cise. The social dimension of such pre-enactments becomes apparent as well because of their role in
the production of intersubjectivity: embodied action plans are directed towards a spatially present
and perceptible ‘other’ engaged in the process of knowledge communication.
Paul Sambre in his contribution challenges the concept of image schemas, a term used in cognitive
linguistics to refer to embodied prelinguistic structures that motivate patterns in language and
thought, when confronted with the instruction of embodied practices. More specifically, he argues
that the notion of high musical pitch, conceptualized in terms of an abstract embodied image schema,
needs to be replaced by a multidimensional body schema, taking into account the interplay between
speech, gesture, the performing body and the musical instrument (in this analysis the trumpet). Rather
than adopting the classical view on high pitch in terms of upward verticality, he argues that this con-
ceptualization needs to be enriched by other dimensions such as nonvertical movement or immobility,
which better reflect the natural corporeal reality of the embodied knowledge to be acquired. Such
enriched schemas may provide a more dynamic and flexible resource on which both teachers and stu-
dents can rely in the process of knowledge transmission.
Melisa Stevanovic zooms in on the use of noun metaphors of bodily behavior in the instruction of
children's music instrument playing. Combining insights from Conversation Analysis and Conceptual
Metaphor Theory, she presents a sequential analysis showing the temporal relation of the metaphor-
ical elements in the teacher’s instruction and the children’s handling of the instrument. A close reading
of video-recorded sequences shows that metaphors may serve as initial orientation points, through
which teachers can assess students’ knowledge and through which students can demonstrate that
knowledge. At the same time, the analysis reveals that metaphor turns may help teachers in initiating
correction in a complex movement sequence, but also in the formulation of an affirmative evaluation
of students’ performance. In this sense, metaphors may serve as an important instructional resource
in the transmission of embodied knowledge, transforming experiential features into an intelligible be-
Darren J. Reed analyzes how instructors manage to claim that they have knowledge about the internal
workings of a student's body. The internal workings of one’s own body and ‘how the body feels’ are a
domain of experience that inherently belong to the epistemic territory of that particular person. It is
thus a practical problem for instructors to claim knowledge about this domain, in some cases even to
know better than the person herself. Based on data from musical master classes, in which a student is
instructed in front of an audience, the author analyzes how an instructor of Alexander technique deals
with this problem. This is realized through a sequential development from an intimate contact to the
student, involving interpersonal touch, to a public display for the audience, using mimesis. In his con-
tribution the author makes a point in how Conversation Analysis may be used to methodologically deal
with ‘invisible sensorial interactions’ between participants and how those interactions are integrated
into multimodal patterns of sense-making.
Wolfgang Kesselheim & Christina Brandenberger zoom in on the experience and transfer of
knowledge in the context of science and technology centers. Such centers typically offer hands-on
exhibits through which visitors can discover and experience particular natural phenomena. And since
most visitors do not visit such centers alone, an interesting question is how individual, often multisen-
sorial experiences are shared with co-visitors, leading to a form of transfer of bodily experienced
knowledge in situ. The authors distinguish between two patterns of joint discoveries in this specific
setting. In the first type, the co-visitors establish a joint focus of visual attention in their common per-
ceptual space, which in this particular study is measured using mobile eye-tracking data of recorded
participants. In the second type, a co-visitor repeats the actions of another visitor that led to a partic-
ular discovery, hence creating a form of reproduction sequences that is strongly based on shared ex-
perience and intensified intercorporeality.
This issue is based on a symposium held at the Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg (Germany), Feb-
ruary 25-26, 2019, that was co-hosted by the guest editors of the volume. It was supported by a grant
from the Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of Baden-Württemberg (Az: Research Seed Capital
- RiSC 2017) to Oliver Ehmer and a grant from the Flemish National Science Foundation (FWO) to Geert
Brône. Angelika Götz took care of the nitty-gritty organizational aspects in a lovely way. We would
especially like to thank Anja Stukenbrock who provided a commentary on the papers at the end of the
symposium, highlighting commonalities and perspectives. Of course, this issue would not have been
possible without the support of the external reviewers, who dedicated their precious time in reading
the manuscripts. For their helpful and highly supportive comments we would like to thank Elwys De
Stefani, Vito Evola, Beate Hampe, Henrike Helmer, Emily Hofstetter, Dorothea Horst, Silva Ladewig,
Xiaoting Li, Florence Oloff, Silke Reineke, and Ulrich von Wedelstaedt. Last but not least we would like
to thank Susanne Flach, the area editor of Linguistics Vanguard, for her professional and smooth han-
dling of the publication process.
Anderson, John R. 2007. Kognitive Psychologie. Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer
Arnold, Lynnette. 2012. Dialogic embodied action: using gesture to organize
sequence and participation in instructional interaction. Research on
Language and Social Interaction 45. 269–296.
Bezemer, Jeff, Ged Murtagh, Alexandra Cope, Gunther Kress and Roger
Kneebone. 2011. "Scissors, Please": The Practical Accomplishment of
Surgical Work in the Operating Theater. Symbolic Interaction 34(3). 398-
Broth, Mathias and Leelo Keevallik. 2014. Getting ready to move as a couple.
Accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class. Space and Culture
Casey, Edward. 2000. Remembering. A phenomenological study. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Clark, Andy. 1997. Being There. Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clark, Andy. 2016a. Surfing Uncertainty: Prediction, Action, and the Embodied
Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, Herbert H. 2016b. Depicting as a Method of Communication.
Psychological Review 123(3). 324-347.
Clark, Herbert H. and Richard J. Gerrig. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations.
Language 66(4). 764–805.
De Stefani, Elwys. 2018. Formulating direction: Navigational instructions in
driving lessons. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28. 283–303.
De Stefani, Elwys and Anne-Danièle Gazin. 2014. Instructional sequences in
driving lessons: Mobile participants and the temporal and sequential
organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics 65. 63-79.
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2018a. Editorial: Instructions in driving lessons.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2018b. Instruction practices in German driving lessons:
Differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. International Journal of
Applied Linguistics 28(2).
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2018c. Instructions in driving lessons. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics. Special Issue.
Deppermann, Arnulf, Helmuth Feilke and Angelika Linke. 2016. Sprachliche und
kommunikative Praktiken: Eine Annäherung aus linguistischer Sicht. In
Deppermann, Arnulf, Helmuth Feilke and Angelika Linke (eds.),
Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken, 1–23. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Deppermann, Arnulf and Susanne Günthner. 2015. Temporality in Interaction.
Deppermann, Arnulf and Jürgen Streeck (eds.). 2018. Time in embodied
interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources.
Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3).
Engelkamp, Johannes and Hubert D. Zimmer. 2006. Lehrbuch der kognitiven
Psychologie. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Evans, Brian and Edward Reynolds. 2016. The organization of corrective
demonstrations using embodied action in sports coaching feedback.
Symbolic Interaction 39(4). 525-556.
Evans, Bryn. 2017. Intercorporeal (re)enaction: Instructional correction in
basketball practice. In Meyer, Christian and Ulrich von Wedelstaedt (eds.),
Moving Bodies in Interaction – Interacting Bodies in Motion
Intercorporeality, interkinesthesia, and enaction in sports, 267-300.
Evans, Bryn and Richard Fitzgerald. 2017. ‘You Gotta See Both at the Same
Time’: Visually Analyzing Player Performances in Basketball Coaching.
Human Studies 40(1). 121-144.
Evans, Bryn and Oskar Lindwall. 2020. Show Them or Involve Them? Two
Organizations of Embodied Instruction. Research on Language and Social
Interaction 53(2). 223-246.
Evola, Vito and Joanna Skubisz. 2019. Coordinated Collaboration and Nonverbal
Social Interactions: A Formal and Functional Analysis of Gaze, Gestures,
and Other Body Movements in a Contemporary Dance Improvisation
Performance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 4. 451–479.
Filliettaz, Laurent. 2007. 'On peut toucher?' L'orchestration de la perception
sensorielle dans des interactions en formation professionnelle initiale.
Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 85. 11-32.
Filliettaz, Laurent, Ingrid de Saint-Georges and Barbara Duc. 2010. Skiing,
Cheese Fondue and Swiss Watches: Analogical Discourse in Vocational
Training Interactions. Vocations and Learning 3(2). 117–140.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 1999. Transformationen. Zur Einleitung. In Fischer-Lichte,
Erika (ed.), Transformationen. Theater der neunziger Jahre, 7–11. Berlin:
Theater der Zeit.
Foppa, Klaus. 2002. Knowledge and perspective setting. What possible
consequences on conversation do we have to expect? In Graumann, Carl F.
and Werner Kallmeyer (eds.), Perspective and Perspectivation in
Discourse, 9, 15–23. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fuchs, Thomas. 2012. The phenomenology of body memory. In Koch, Sabine C.,
Thomas Fuchs, Michela Summa and Cornelia Müller (eds.), Body Memory,
Metaphor and Movement, 9–22. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Fuchs, Thomas. 2016. Embodied Knowledge – Embodied Memory. In Rinofner-
Kreidl, S. and H. Wiltsche (eds.), Analytic and Continental Philosophy.
Methods and Perspectives. Proceedings of the 37th International
Wittgenstein Symposium, 23, 215–229. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Fuchs, Thomas. 2017. Collective Body Memories. In Durt, Christoph , Thomas
Fuchs and Christian Tewes (eds.), Embodiment, Enaction, and Culture:
Investigating the Constitution of the Shared World, 333-352. Cambridge:
Goffman, Erving. 1986 . Frame analysis. An essay on the organization of
experience. Reprint. Ed. Boston: North Eastern University Press.
Goodwin, Charles. 1994. Professional Vision. American Anthropologist 96(3).
Goodwin, Charles. 2001. Practices of Seeing, Visual Analysis. An
Ethnomethodological Approach. In Leeuwen, Theo van and Carey Jewitt
(eds.), Handbook of Visual Analysis, 157–182. London: Sage.
Goodwin, Charles. 2003. Pointing as Situated Practice. In Kita, Sotaro (ed.),
Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, 217–241.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Haviland, John B. 2007. Master Speakers, Master Gesturers: a String Quartet
Master Class. In Duncan, Susan D., Elena T. Levy and Justine Cassell
(eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor
of David McNeill, 147–172. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Heinemann, Trine and Ragna Lisa Möller. 2015. The virtual accomplishment of
knitting: How novice knitters follow instructions when using a video
tutorial. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8. 25–47.
Helmer, Henrike. 2021. Humorous or occasioned instructions: Learning the
"shoulder check" in theoretical and practical driving lessons. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Hindmarsh, Jonathan Andrew, Lewis Hyland and Avijit Banerjee. 2014. Work to
make simulation work. Discourse Studies 16(2). 247-269.
Hindmarsh, Jonathan Andrew, Patricia Reynolds and Stephen Dunne. 2011.
Exhibiting understanding: The body in apprenticeship. Journal of
Pragmatics 43(2). 489-503.
Hsu, Hui-Chieh, Geert Brône and Kurt Feyaerts. 2021. When gesture “takes
over”: Speech-embedded nonverbal depictions in multimodal interaction.
Jenkings, K. Neil. 2017. Rock climbers’ communicative and sensory practices:
Routine intercorporeality between climbers, rock, and auxiliary
technologies. In Meyer, Christian and Ulrich von Wedelstaedt (eds.),
Moving Bodies in Interaction – Interacting Bodies in Motion
Intercorporeality, interkinesthesia, and enaction in sports, 149-172.
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body In The Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning,
Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chigago Press.
Johnson, Mark. 2018. The aesthetics of meaning and thought: the bodily roots of
philosophy, science, morality, and art. Chicago/London: University of
Keevallik, Leelo. 2010. Bodily Quoting in Dance Correction. Research on
language and social interaction 43(4). 401–426.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2013. The Interdependence of Bodily Demonstrations and
Clausal Syntax. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46. 1–21.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2014a. Having a ball: Immaterial objects in dance instruction.
In Nevile, Maurice, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and Mirka
Rauniomaa (eds.), Interacting with Objects, 245–264. Amsterdam:
Keevallik, Leelo. 2014b. Turn organization and bodily-vocal demonstrations.
Journal of Pragmatics 65. 103-120.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2015. Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In
Deppermann, Arnulf and Susanne Günthner (eds.), Temporality in
Interaction, 309–336. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2019. Transmitting experience of body movements through
voice. Transferring embodied knowledge. Multimodal approaches to
interactive practices for knowledge constitution. International symposium,
Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, February 25-26, 2019, organized by
Oliver Ehmer and Geert Brône.
Keevallik, Leelo. 2020. Linguistic structures emerging in the synchronization of
a Pilates class. In Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen, Emma Betz and Peter
Golato (eds.), Moblizing Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger
Activities, 147–173. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kesselheim, Wolfgang. 2012. Gemeinsam im Museum. Materielle Umwelt und
interaktive Ordnung. In Hausendorf, Heiko, Lorenza Mondada and
Reinhold Schmitt (eds.), Raum als interaktive Ressource, 187–232.
Kolter, Astrid, Silva H. Ladewig, Michela Summa, Sabine C Koch, Thomas
Fuchs and Cornelia Müller. 2012. Body memory and emergence of
metaphor in movement and speech. An interdisciplinary case study. In
Fuchs, Thomas, Michela Summa and Cornelia Müller (eds.), Body
Memory, Metaphor and Movement, 201–226. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh : the embodied
mind and its challenge to western thought New York: Basic Books.
Levin, Lena, Jakob Cromdal, Mathias Broth and Anne-Danièle Gazin. 2017.
Unpacking corrections in mobile instruction: Error-occasioned learning
opportunities in driving, cycling and aviation training. Linguistics and
Education 38. 11-23.
Lindwall, Oskar and Anna Ekström. 2012. Instruction-in-Interaction: The
Teaching and Learning of a Manual Skill. Human Studies 35(1). 27-49.
Lindwall, Oskar and Gustav Lymer. 2014. Inquiries of the body: Novice questions
and the instructable observability of endodontic scenes. Discourse Studies
Lindwall, Oskar, Gustav Lymer and Christian Greiffenhagen. 2015. The
Sequential Analysis of Instruction. In Markee, Numa (ed.), The Handbook
of Classroom Discourse and Interaction, 142-157. Oxford: Wiley.
Melander, Helen. 2018. Multiple Perspectives on the Same Event: Professional
Vision, Tactility, and Embodied Feeling. In Favareau, Donald (ed.), Co-
operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of
Charles Goodwin, 280–286. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Melander, Helen and Fritjof Sahlström. 2009. Learning to Fly – The Progressive
Development of Situation Awareness. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research 53(2). 151–166.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1945. Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris:
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1964. The Philosopher and his Shadow. In Merleau-
Ponty, Maurice (ed.), Signs, 159–181. Evanston: Northwestern University
Meyer, Christian , Jürgen Streeck and J. Scott Jordan (eds.). 2017.
Intercorporeality. Emerging Socialities in Interaction. New York: Oxford
Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. The Organization of Concurrent Courses of Action in
Surgical Demonstrations. In Streeck, Jürgen, Charles Goodwin and Curtis
LeBaron (eds.), Embodied Interaction. Language and Body in the Material
World, 207-226. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014a. Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the
kitchen. In Nevile, Maurice, Pentti Haddington, Trine Heinemann and
Mirka Rauniomaa (eds.), Interacting with Objects, 199–226. Amsterdam:
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014b. Instructions in the operating room. How surgeons
direct their assistant’s hands. Discourse Studies 16. 131–161.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014c. Requesting immediate action in the surgical operating
room. Time, embodied resources and praxeological embeddedness. In
Drew, Paul and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.), Requesting in social
interaction, 269–302. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014d. The surgeon as a camera director: Maneuvering video
in the operating theatre. In Broth, Mathias, Eric Laurier and Lorenza
Mondada (eds.), Studies of Video Practices: Video at Work, 97–132.
Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2014e. The temporal orders of multiactivity: operating and
demonstrating in the surgical theatre. In Haddington, Pentti, Tiina
Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada and Maurice Nevile (eds.), Multiactivity in
Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, 33-76. Amsterdam: John
Mondada, Lorenza. 2018. Driving instruction at high speed on a race circuit:
Issues in action formation and sequence organization. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics 28. 1-22.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2019. Contemporary issues in conversation analysis:
Embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social
interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 145. 47-62.
Mondada, Lorenza. 2020. Orchestrating Multi-sensoriality in Tasting Sessions:
Sensing Bodies, Normativity, and Language. Symbolic Interaction n.a. n.a.
Müller, Cornelia. 2014. Gestural Modes of Representation as techniques of
depiction. In Müller, Cornelia, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H.
Ladewig, David McNeill and Jana Bressem (eds.), Body – Language –
Communication: An international Handbook on Multimodality in Human
Interaction. (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 38.2.).
Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
Müller, Cornelia and Ulrike Bohle. 2007. Das Fundament fokussierter
Interaktion. Zur Vorbereitung und Herstellung von Interaktionsräumen
durch körperliche Koordination. In Schmitt, Reinhold (ed.), Koordination.
Analysen zur multimodalen Interaktion, 129–165. Tübingen: Narr.
Müller, Cornelia and Silva H. Ladewig. 2013. Metaphors for Sensorimotor
Experiences. Gestures as Embodied and Dynamic Conceptualizations of
Balance in Dance Lessons. In Borkent, Mike, Barbara Dancygier and
Jennifer Hinnell (eds.), Language and the Creative Mind. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Muntanyola-Saura, Dafne. 2015. Distributed Marking in Sport Corrections. A
Conversation Analysis of Synchronized Swimming. Cognitive Science
Nishizaka, Aug. 2003. Imagination in action. Theory & Psychology 13(2). 177-
Nishizaka, Aug. 2007. Hand touching hand: Referential practice at a Japanese
midwife house. Human Studies 30(3). 199-217.
Nishizaka, Aug. 2011. Touch without vision: Referential practice in a non-
technological environment. Journal of Pragmatics 43(2). 504-520.
Nishizaka, Aug. 2014. Instructed perception in prenatal ultrasound examination.
Discourse Studies 16(2). 217-246.
Nishizaka, Aug. 2017. The Perceived Body and Embodied Vision in Interaction.
Mind, Culture, and Activity 24(2). 110-128.
Nishizaka, Aug. 2018. Aspect-Seeing in the Interactional Organization of
Activities. In Favareau, Donald (ed.), Co-operative Engagements in
Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin, 345–354.
Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Okada, Misao. 2013. Embodied interactional competence in boxing practice:
Coparticipants’ joint accomplishment of a teaching and learning activity.
Language & Communication 33(4). 390-403.
Okada, Misao. 2018. Imperative Actions in Boxing Sparring Sessions. Research
on Language and Social Interaction 51. 67–84.
Pecher, Diane and Rolf A. Zwaan. 2005. Grounding cognition: the role of
perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago
Putzier, Eva-Maria. 2012. Der ‘Demonstrationsraum’ als Form der
Wahrnehmungsstrukturierung. In Hausendorf, Heiko, Lorenza Mondada
and Reinhold Schmitt (eds.), Raum als interaktive Ressource, 275–316.
Putzier, Eva-Maria. 2016. Wissen – Sprache – Raum. Zur Multimodalität der
Interaktion im Chemieunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.
Raevaara, Liisa. 2017. Adjusting the design of directives to the activity
environment: Imperatives in Finnish cooking club interaction. In Sorjonen,
Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen (eds.),
Imperative Turns at Talk: The design of directives in action, 381–410.
Råman, Joonas. 2019. Budo Demonstrations as Shared Accomplishments: The
Modalities of Guiding in the Joint Teaching of Physical Skills. Journal of
Pragmatics 150. 17-38.
Råman, Joonas and Pentti Haddington. 2018. Demonstrations in Sports Training:
Communicating a Technique through Parsing and the Return-Practice in
the Budo Class. Multimodal Communication 7(2).
Rauniomaa, Mirka. 2017. Assigning roles and responsibilities: Finnish
imperatively formatted directive actions in a mobile instructional setting.
In Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk. The design of directives in action, 325-
355. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reed, Darren J. 2015. Relinquishing in musical masterclasses: Embodied action
in interactional projects. Journal of Pragmatics 89. 31-49.
Reed, Darren J. 2019. Touch and talk: detailing embodied experience in the music
masterclass. Social Semiotics. 1-21.
Reed, Darren and Beatrice Szczepek Reed. 2013. Building an instructional
project: Actions as components of music masterclasses. In Szczepek Reed,
Beatrice and Geoffrey Raymond (eds.), Units of Talk – Units of Action,
313–342. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Reed, Darren and Beatrice Szczepek Reed. 2014. The emergence of learnables in
music masterclasses. Social Semiotics 24(4). 446-467.
Russell, Bertrand 1910–1911. Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by
description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society (new series) XI. 108–
Ryle, Gilbert. 1949. The concept of mind. London: Hutchinson.
Rystedt, Hans, Claes Reit, Elin Johansson and Oskar Lindwall. 2013. Seeing
Through the Dentist’s Eyes: Video-Based Clinical Demonstrations in
Preclinical Dental Training. Journal of Dental Education 77. 1629–1638.
Sambre, Paul and Kurt Feyaerts. 2017. Embodied musical meaning-making and
multimodal viewpoints in a trumpet master class. Journal of Pragmatics
San Diego, Jonathan, Margaret Cox, Jonathan Andrew Hindmarsh, Mark
Woolford and Patricia Reynolds. 2009. Do haptics give dental students a
cutting edge in the learning of clinical skills?
Schacter, Daniel L. 1987. Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 13(3). 501–
Schindler, Larissa. 2011. Teaching by Doing: Zur körperlichen Vermittlung von
Wissen. In Keller, Reiner and Michael Meuser (eds.), Körperwissen.
Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Schindler, Larissa. 2016. Kampffertigkeit. Eine Soziologie praktischen Wissens.
Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
Schmidt, Robert. 2008. Stumme Weitergabe. Zur Praxeologie sozialisatorischer
Vermittlungsprozesse. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und
Sozialisation 28. 121–136.
Singh, Ajit. 2019. Wissenskommunikation im Sport. Zur Kommunikativen
Konstruktion von Körperwissen im Nachwuchstraining. Wiesbaden: VS
Stevanovic, Melisa. 2017. Managing compliance in violin instruction: The case
of the Finnish clitic particles -pA and -pAs in imperatives and hortatives. In
Sorjonen, Marja-Leena, Liisa Raevaara and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen
(eds.), Imperative Turns at Talk: The design of directives in action, 357–
380. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Streeck, Jürgen. 2009. Depicting gestures: Examples of the analysis of embodied
communication in the arts of the West. Gesture 9. 1–34.
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014a. Pointing to an ‘empty’ space: Deixis am Phantasma in
face-to-face interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 74(Supplement C). 70-93.
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2014b. Take the words out of my mouth: Verbal instructions
as embodied practices. Journal of Pragmatics 65(Supplement C). 80-102.
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2017. Intercorporeal Phantasms: Kinesthetic Alignment with
Imagined Bodies in Self-Defense Training. In Meyer, Christian , Jürgen
Streeck and J. Scott Jordan (eds.), Intercorporeality. Emerging Socialities
in Interaction, 237-265. New York: Oxford University Press.
Szczepek Reed, Beatrice, Darren Reed and Elizabeth Haddon. 2013. NOW or
NOT NOW: Coordinating Restarts in the Pursuit of Learnables in Vocal
Master Classes. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46(1). 22-
Tanaka, Shogo. 2015. Intercorporeality as a theory of social cognition. Theory &
Psychology 25. 455–472.
von Wedelstaedt, Ulrich and Ajit Singh. 2017. Intercorporeality with imaginary
bodies. The case of trampoline and boxing training. In Meyer, Christian
and Ulrich von Wedelstaedt (eds.), Moving Bodies in Interaction –
Interacting Bodies in Motion Intercorporeality, interkinesthesia, and
enaction in sports, 323–344. Benjamins: Amsterdam.
Weeks, Peter. 1996. A Rehearsal of a Beethoven Passage: An Analysis of
Correction Talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29. 247–
Wulf, Christoph, Michael Göhlich and Jörg Zirfas. 2001. Sprache, Macht und
Handeln. Aspekte des Performativen. In Wulf, Christoph, Michael Göhlich
and Jörg Zirfas (eds.), Grundlagen des Performativen. Eine Einführung in
die Zusammenhänge von Sprache, Macht und Handeln, 9–24. Weinheim:
Zemel, Alan and Timothy Koschmann. 2014. ‘Put your fingers right in here’:
Learnability and instructed experience. Discourse Studies 16(2). 163-183.