Book contents
- Sensing in Social Interaction
- Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives
- Sensing in Social Interaction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Extracts
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Sensoriality in Interaction
- Part II Looking and Knowing
- Part III Sensing Together
- Part IV Tasting, Assessing, and Making Decisions
- Appendix: Transcription Conventions
- Bibliography
- Index
- Series page
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 October 2021
Book contents
- Sensing in Social Interaction
- Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive, and Computational Perspectives
- Sensing in Social Interaction
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Extracts
- Acknowledgments
- Part I Sensoriality in Interaction
- Part II Looking and Knowing
- Part III Sensing Together
- Part IV Tasting, Assessing, and Making Decisions
- Appendix: Transcription Conventions
- Bibliography
- Index
- Series page
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Sensing in Social InteractionThe Taste for Cheese in Gourmet Shops, pp. 521 - 552Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Adams, M., Moore, G., Cox, T., Croxford, B., Refaee, M. & Sharples, S. (2007). The 24-hour city: residents’ sensorial experiences. The Senses and Society, 2(2), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akrich, M., Hennion, A., Rabeharisoa, V. & Mondada, L. (2004). Vom Objekt zur Interaktion und zurück. Zeitschrift für qualitative Bildungs-, Beratungs- und Sozialforschung, 2, 239–272. (French version: Mondada, L., Akrich, M., Hennion, A. & Rabeharisoa, V. (2007). Des objets aux interactions, et retour, Working Papers du CSI, 007).Google Scholar
Amerine, M. A. & Roessler, E. B. (1976). Wines: Their Sensory Evaluation. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Antaki, C. (2002). “Lovely”: turn-initial high-grade assessments in telephone closings. Discourse Studies, 4(1), 5–23.Google Scholar
Antaki, C., Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. & Rapley, M. (2000) “Brilliant. Next question…”: high-grade assessment sequences in the completion of interactional units. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 33(3), 235–262.Google Scholar
Antal, A. B., Hutter, M. & Stark, D. (2015). Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Appadurai, A. (1988). How to make a national cuisine: cookbooks in contemporary India. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 30(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (ed.). (1988). Negotiating Service: Studies in the Discourse of Bookshop Encounters. Bologna: Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice.Google Scholar
Atkins, P. W. (2010). Liquid Materialities: A History of Milk, Science and the Law. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2005). Projections in interaction and projections in grammar. Text, 25(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Auer, P. (2009). On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences. 31(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Auvray, M. & Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(3), 1016–1031.Google Scholar
Avital, S. & Streeck, J. (2011). Terra incognita: social interaction among blind children. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. (eds.) Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–181.Google Scholar
Backhouse, A. E. (1994). The Lexical Field of Taste: A Semantic Study of Japanese Taste Terms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barretto, R. P. J., Gillis-Smith, S., Chandrashekar, J., Yarmolinsky, D. A., Schnitzer, M. J., Ryba, N. J. P. & Zuker, C. S. (2015). The neural representation of taste quality at the periphery. Nature, 517, 373–376.Google Scholar
Barton, R. (2006). Olfactory evolution and behavioral ecology in primates. American Journal of Primatology, 68(6), 545–558.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bergnéhr, D. & Cekaite, A. (2018). The forms and functions of touch in a Swedish preschool. International Journal of Early Education, 26(3), 312–331.Google Scholar
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and Context: Essays on Body Motion Communication. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. ([1977] 1990). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. ([1979] 1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London: Routledge [La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit].Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. ([1980] 1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press [Le sens pratique. Paris: Minuit].Google Scholar
Breslin, P. A. S. (2013). An evolutionary perspective on food and human taste. Current Biology. 23(9), R409–R418.Google Scholar
Broth, M., Laurier, E. & Mondada, L. (2014). Studies of Video Practices: Video at Work. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Broth, M. & Lundström, F. (2013). A walk on the pier: establishing relevant places in mobile instruction. In Haddington, P., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M. (eds.) Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, B. (2004). The order of service: the practical management of customer interaction. Sociological Research Online, 9(4), 28–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burenhult, N. & Majid, A. (2011). Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. The Senses & Society, 6(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, E. (2019). Mouth work: bodily action in sensory science. Food, Culture & Society, 22(2), 224–236.Google Scholar
Callon, M. & Law, J. (2005). On qualculation, agency, and otherness. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23(5), 717–733.Google Scholar
Callon, M., Méadel, C. & Rabeharisoa, V. (2002). The economy of qualities. Economy and Society, 31(2), 194–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candau, J. (2000). Mémoire et expériences olfactives. Anthropologie d’un savoir-faire sensoriel. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Cavanaugh, J. R. (2007). Making salami, producing bergamo: the transformation of value. Ethnos, 72(2), 149–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, A. (2010). Shepherding the child: embodied directive sequences in parent-child interactions. Text & Talk, 30(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Cekaite, A. (2015). The coordination of talk and touch in adults’ directives to children: touch and social control. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 152–175.Google Scholar
Cekaite, A. (2016). Touch as social control: haptic organization of attention in adult-child interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, A. & Holm Kvist, M. (2017). The comforting touch: tactile intimacy and talk in managing children’s distress. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, A. & Mondada, L. (2020). Introduction. In Cekaite, A. and Mondada, L. (eds.) Touch in Social Interaction: Touch, Language, and Body. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cekaite, A. & Mondada, L. (eds.). (2020). Touch in Social Interaction: Touch, Language, and Body. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, A. F. (1903). Primitive taste-words. The American Journal of Psychology, 14, 146–153.Google Scholar
Chrea, C., Valentin, D., Sulmont-Rossé, C., Hoang Nguyen, D. & Abdi, H. (2005). Semantic, typicality and odor representation: a cross-cultural study. Chemical Senses, 30(1), 37–49.Google Scholar
Clark, C., Drew, P. & Pinch, T. (2003). Managing prospect affiliation and rapport in real-life sales encounters. Discourse Studies, 5(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, C. & Pinch, T. (1995). The Hard Sell: The Language and Lessons of Street-Wise Marketing. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Clark, C. & Pinch, T. (2010). Some major organisational consequences of some “minor” organised conduct: evidence from a video analysis of pre-verbal service encounters in a showroom retail store. In Llewellyn, N. and Hindmarsh, J. (eds.) Organisation, Interaction and Practice: Studies of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Classen, C. (1993). Worlds of Sense: Exploring the Senses in History and Across Cultures. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Classen, C. (1997). Foundations for an anthropology of the senses. International Social Scence Journal, 153, 402–423.Google Scholar
Classen, C. (2012). The Deepest Sense: A Cultural History of Touch. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Classen, C., Howes, D. & Synnott, A. (1994). Aroma: The Cultural History of Smell. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clayman, S. E. & Heritage, J. (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, P. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.) Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 55–86.Google Scholar
Cochoy, F. (2008). Calculation, qualculation, calqulation: shopping cart arithmetic, equipped cognition and the clustered consumer. Marketing Theory, 8(1), 15–44.Google Scholar
Conein, B. & Jacopin, E. (1993). Les objets dans l’espace. La planification de l’action. Raisons Pratiques, 4, 59–84.Google Scholar
Corbin, A. ([1982] 1986). Le miasme et la jonquille. Paris: Aubier-Montaigne [The Foul and the Fragrant: Odour and the Social Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press].Google Scholar
Coulter, J. & Parsons, E. D. (1991). The praxiology of perception: visual orientations and practical action. Inquiry, 33:3, 251–272.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2014). What does grammar tell us about action? Pragmatics, 24(3), 623–647.Google Scholar
Cox, R. A., Irving, A. & Wright, C. (eds.). (2016). Beyond Text: Critical Practice and Sensory Anthropology. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Crabtree, A., Tolmie, P. & Rouncefield, M. (2013). Cooking for pleasure. In Tolmie, P. and Rouncefield, M. (eds.) Ethnomethodology at Play. Farnham, Surey, UK: Ashgate, pp. 21–51.Google Scholar
Craven, A. & Potter, J. (2010). Directives: entitlement and contingency in action. Discourse Studies, 12(4), 419–442.Google Scholar
Croijmans, I. & Majid, A. (2015). Odor naming is difficult, even for wine and coffee experts. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2015). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 483–488.Google Scholar
Croijmans, I. & Majid, A. (2016). Not all flavor expertise is equal: the language of wine and coffee experts. PLoS ONE, 11(6): e0155845.Google Scholar
Csordas, T. J. (2008). Intersubjectivity and intercorporeality. Subjectivity, 22(1), 110–121.Google Scholar
Cuffari, E. & Streeck, J. (2017). Taking the world by hand: how (some) gestures mean. In Meyer, C., Streeck, J. and Jordan, J. S. (eds.) Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–202.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. (2006). Offers of assistance: constraints on syntactic design. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1257–1280.Google Scholar
Curl, T. S. & Drew, P. (2008). Contingency and action: a comparison of two forms of requesting. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41(2), 129–153.Google Scholar
Davidson, J. A. (1984). Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requests, and proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 102–128.Google Scholar
Day, D. & Wagner, J. (2014). Objects as tools for talk. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. and Rauniomaa, M. (eds.) Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 101–124.Google Scholar
Day, D. & Wagner, J. (eds.). (2019). Objects, Bodies and Work Practice. Bristol, UK: Channel View Publications.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2010). Reference as an interactively and multimodally accomplished practice: organizing spatial reorientation in guided tours. In Pettorino, M., Giannini, A., Chiari, I. and Dovetto, E. (eds.) Spoken Communication. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 137–170.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2011). “Ah petta ecco, io prendo questi che mi piacciono.” Agire come coppia al supermercato. Un approccio conversazionale e multimodale allo studio dei processi decisionali. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. (2014). Establishing joint orientation towards commercial objects in a self-service store: how practices of categorisation matter. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. and Rauniomaa, M. (eds.) Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 271–294.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E., Broth, M. & Deppermann, A. (eds.). (2019). On the road: communicating traffic. Special Issue of Language & Communication, 65.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. & Gazin, A. (2014). Instructional sequences in driving lessons: mobile participants and the temporal and sequential organization of actions. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Stefani, E. & Mondada, L. (2017). Who’s the expert? Negotiating competence and authority in guided tours. In Van De Mieroop, C. and Schnurr, S. (eds.) Identity Struggles: Evidence from Workplaces around the World. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar
De Stefani, E. & Mondada, L. (2018). Encounters in public space: how acquainted versus unacquainted persons establish social and spatial arrangements. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 248–270.Google Scholar
Degenaar, M. J. L. (1996). Molyneux’s Problem: Three Centuries of Discussion on the Perception of Forms. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Demossier, M. (2011). Beyond terroir: territorial construction, hegemonic discourses, and French wine culture. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17(4), 685–705.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (ed.). (2013). Multimodal interaction from a conversation analytic perspective. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 1–172.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015a). Retrospection and understanding in interaction. In Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S. (eds.) Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 57–94.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015b). When recipient design fails: egocentric turn-design of instructions in driving school lessons leading to breakdowns of intersubjectivity. Gesprächsforschung: Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, 16, 63–101.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018a). Inferential practices in social interaction : a conversation-analytic account. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 35–55.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2018b). Instruction practices in German driving lessons: differential uses of declaratives and imperatives. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28, 265–282.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Günthner, S. (eds.). (2015). Temporality in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A., Laurier, E. & Mondada, L. with contributions by Broth, M., Cromdal, J., De Stefani, E., Haddington, P., Levin, L., Nevile, & Rauniomaa, M., M. (2018). Overtaking as an interactional achievement: video analyses of participants’ practices in traffic. Gesprächsforschung, 19, 1–131.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. & Streeck, J. (eds.). (2018). Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. ([1887] 1967). John Dewey: the early works 1882–1898 Vol. 2. In Herbert, W. S. (ed.) Carbondale. IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dicks, B. (2014). Action, experience, communication: three methodological paradigms for researching multimodal and multisensory settings. Qualitative Research, 14(6), 656–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diderot, D. ([1749] 1977). Letter on the blind. In Morgan, M. J. (ed.) (1977) Molyneux’s question: Vision, Touch, and the Philosophy of Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diederich, C. (2015). Sensory Adjectives in the Discourse of Food: A Frame Semantic Approach to Language and Perception. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2011a). Ideophones and the aesthetics of everyday language in a West-African society. The Senses and Society, 6(1), 77–85.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, M. (2011b). Ezra Pound among the Mawu: ideophones and iconicity in Siwu. In Michelucci, P., Fischer, O. and Ljungberg, C. (eds.) Semblance and Signification. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
Drake, M. A. & Civille, G. V. (2003). Flavor lexicons. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 2(1), 33–40.Google Scholar
Dubois, D. (2006). Des catégories d’odorants à la sémantique des odeurs: Une approche cognitive de l’olfaction. Terrain: Anthropologie & Sciences Humaines, 47, 89–106.Google Scholar
Dubois, D. & Rouby, C. (1997). Une approche de l’olfaction: du linguistique au neuronal. Intellectica, 24, 9–20.Google Scholar
Dupire, M. (1987). Des goûts et des odeurs: classifications et universaux. L’Homme, 104, 5–25.Google Scholar
Egbert, M. & Deppermann, A. (eds.). (2012). Hearing Aids Communication. Mannheim: Verlag für Gesprächsforschung.Google Scholar
Egginton, W. & Sandbothe, M. (eds.). (2004). The Pragmatic Turn in Philosophy. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ekman, P. & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Clues. Oxford: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. (2011). Taste in two tongues: a Southeast Asian study of semantic convergence. The Senses and Society, 6(1), 30–37.Google Scholar
Farquhar, J. (2002). Appetites: Food and Sex in Post-Socialist China. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Fasulo, A. & Monzoni, C. (2009). Assessing mutable objects: a multimodal analysis. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 362–376.Google Scholar
Febvre, L. ([1941] 1973). Sensibility and history. In Burke, P. (ed.) A New Kind of History from the Writings of Febvre. London: Routledge, pp. 12–26. [La Sensibilité et l’Histoire: comment reconstituer la vie affective d’autrefois? Annales d’Histoire sociale (1939–1941), 3(1/2), 5–20].Google Scholar
Feld, S. (1982). Sound and Sentiment: Birds, Weeping, Poetics, and Song in Kaluli Expression Conduct and Communication Series. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Feld, S. (2003). A rainforest acoustemology. In Bull, M. and Back, L. (eds.) The Auditory Culture Reader. Oxford: Berg, pp. 223–239.Google Scholar
Feld, S. & Brenneis, D. (2004). Doing anthropology in sound. American Ethnologist, 31(4), 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fele, G. (2016). Il paradosso del gusto: forme visibili dell’apprezzamento estetico. SocietàMutamentoPolitica, 7(14), 151–174.Google Scholar
Fele, G. (2019). Olfactory objects: recognizing, describing and assessing smells during professional tasting sessions. In Day, D. and Wagner, J. (eds.) Objects, Bodies and Work Practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 250–284.Google Scholar
Fele, G. & Liberman, K. (2020). Some discovered practices of lay coffee drinkers. Symbolic Interaction, 44, 40–62.Google Scholar
Félix-Brasdefer, J. C. (2015). The Language of Service Encounters: A Pragmatic-Discursive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Floyd, S., San Roque, L. & Majid, A. (2018). Smell is coded in grammar and frequent in discourse: Cha’palaa olfactory language in cross‐linguistic perspective. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 28, 175–196.Google Scholar
Folkers, A. (2013). Was ist neu am neuen Materialismus? Von der Praxis zum Ereignis. In Goll, T., Telios, T. and Keil, D. (eds.) Critical Matter: Diskussionen eines neuen Materialismus. Münster: Edition Assemblage.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. ([1975] 1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books [Surveiller et punir, Paris: Gallimard].Google Scholar
Fox, B. & Heinemann, T. (2015). The alignment of manual and verbal displays in requests for the repair of an object. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(3), 342–362.Google Scholar
Fox, B. & Heinemann, T. (2016). Rethinking format: an examination of requests. Language in Society, 45(4), 499–531.Google Scholar
Fox, B. & Heinemann, T. (2017). Issues in action formation: requests and the problem with x. Open Linguistics, 3, 31–64.Google Scholar
Fox, B. & Heinemann, T. (in press). The request-return sequence: what can happen at the Interface between picking up a repaired item and paying for it. In Fox, B., Mondada, L. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (eds.) Encounters at the Counter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, B., Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (eds.). (in press). Encounters at the Counter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, T. & De Jaeger, H. (2009). Enactive intersubjectivity: participatory sensemaking and mutual incorporation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 8, 465–486.Google Scholar
Fukutomi, S. (2014). Bottom-up food: making rāmen a gourmet food in Tokyo. Food and Foodways, 22(1–2), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulkerson, M. (2014). The First Sense: A Philosophical Study of Human Touch. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Galatolo, R. & Traverso, V. (2005). Two cooks at work: independent and coordinated lines of action. In Mondada, L. (ed.) Interacting Bodies / Le corps en interaction, Proceedings of the 2d ISGS Conference. Lyon, France: ENS.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1991). Respecification: evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc. in and as of the essential haecceity of immortal ordinary society. In Button, G. (ed.) Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1996). Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59(1), 5–21.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working Out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Garfinkel, H. & Wieder, D. L. (1992). Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In Watson, G. and Seiler, R. (eds.) Text in Context. Newbury Park: Sage, pp. 175–206.Google Scholar
Gawel, R. (1997). The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 267–284.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, C., Frobenius, M. & Ley, S. (eds.). (2013). Culinary Linguistics: The Chef’s Special. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1962). Observations on active touch. Psychological Review, 69(6), 477–491.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
Giglioli, P. P. & Fele, G. (2016). The knowledge of sommeliers: toward an ethnography of wine tasting. Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa, 1, 53–72.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public: Microstudies of the Public Order. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gomart, É. & Hennion, A. (1999). A Sociology of attachment: music lovers, drug addicts. In Law, J. and Hassard, J. (eds.) Actor Network Theory and After. Oxford/Malden MA: Blackwell, pp. 220–247.Google Scholar
Gonzalez Temer, V. (2017). A multimodal analysis of assessment sequences in chilean spanish interaction. PhD thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 225–246.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000a). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000b). Practices of color classification. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 19–36.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000c). Practices of seeing: visual analysis. In van Leeuwen, T. & Jewitt, C. (eds.) Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage, pp. 157–182.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2003a). Pointing as situated practice. In Kita, S. (ed.) Pointing: Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum, pp. 217–241.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2003b). Recognizing assessable names. In Glenn, P., LeBaron, C. D. and Mandelbaum, J. (eds.) Studies in Language and Social Interaction: In Honor of Robert Hopper. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 151–161.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2004). Practices of seeing visual analysis: an ethnomethodological approach. In Van Leeuwen, T. and Carey, J. (eds.) The Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2010). Things and their embodied environments. In Malafouris, L. and Renfrew, C. (eds.) The Cognitive Life of Things: Recasting Boundaries of the Mind. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1(1), pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.) Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–190.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. & Smith, M. (2020). Calibrating professional perception through touch in geological fieldwork. In Cekaite, A. and Mondada, L. (eds.) Touch in social interaction: Touch, Language and Body. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (1980). Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3‐4), 303–317.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. (2017). Haptic sociality: the embodied interactive constitution of intimacy through touch. In Meyer, C., Streeck, J. and Jordan, J. S. (eds.) Intercorporeality: Emerging Socialities in Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 73–102.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. and Cekaite, A. (2013). Calibration in directive-response trajectories in family interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 122–138.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. H. & Cekaite, A. (2018). Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Creativity. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goody, J. (2008). The recipe, the prescription and the experiment. In Counihan, C. and Van Esterik, P. (eds.) Food and Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 78–90.Google Scholar
Gottfried, J. A. (2010). Central mechanisms of odour object perception. Nature reviews Neuroscience, 11(9), 628–641.Google Scholar
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: a preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.Google Scholar
Grasseni, C. (2004). Skilled vision: an apprenticeship in breeding aesthetics. Social Anthropology, 12(1), 41–55.Google Scholar
Grasseni, C. (2005). Designer cows: the practice of cattle breeding between skill and standardization. Society & Animals, 13(1), 33.Google Scholar
Grasseni, C. (2007). Skilled Visions: Between Apprenticeship and Standards. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Grasseni, C. (2016). The Heritage Arena: Reinventing Cheese in the Italian Alps. Oxford, New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Grasseni, C., Paxson, H., Bingen, J., Cohen, A. J., Freidberg, S. & West, H. G. (2014). Introducing a special issue on the reinvention of rood. Gastronomica, 14(4), 1–6.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, A. (2012). The Ethnographic Eye: Ways of Seeing in Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guest, S., Dessirier, J. M., Mehrabyan, A., McGlone, F., Essick, G., Gescheider, G., Fontana, A., Xiong, R., Ackerley, R. & Blot, K. (2011). The development and validation of sensory and emotional scales of touch perception. Atten Percept Psychophys, 73(2), 531–550.Google Scholar
Guy, S. (2007). Discipline and disruption: making senses of the city. Senses and Society, 2(2), 247–252.Google Scholar
Haakana, M. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2011). Invoking another context: playfulness in buying lottery tickets at convenience stores. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1288–1302.Google Scholar
Haddington, P., Mondada, L. & Nevile, M. (eds.). (2013). Interaction and Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Halloy, A. (2018). L’odeur de l’axé: pratiques olfactives et efficacité rituelle dans un culte afro-brésilien. Jounal de la Société des Américanistes, 104(1), 117–148.Google Scholar
Harjunpää, K., Mondada, L. & Svinhufvud, K. (2018). The coordinated entry into service encounters in food shops: managing interactional space, availability, and service during openings. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3), 271–291.Google Scholar
Harjunpää, K., Mondada, L. & Svinhufvud, K. (in press). In Fox, B., Mondada, L. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (eds.) Encounters at the Counter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harkness, N. (2015). The pragmatics of qualia in practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44(1), 573–589.Google Scholar
Harper, D. (2002). Talking about pictures: a case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17(1), 13–26.Google Scholar
Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M. & Slack, R. (2002). Performance management in breast screening: a case study of professional vision. Cognition, Technology & Work, 4(2), 91–100.Google Scholar
Hausendorf, H. (2003). Deixis and speech situation revisited: the mechanism of perceived perception. In Lenz, F. (ed.) Deictic Conceptualisiation of Space, Time and Person. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 249–269.Google Scholar
Heath, C. (1984). Participation in the medical consultation: the co-ordination of verbal and nonverbal behaviour between the doctor and patient. Sociology of Health & Illness, 6(3), 311–388.Google Scholar
Heath, C. (1986). Body Movement and Speech in Medical Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, C. (2012). The Dynamics of Auction: Social Interaction and the Sale of Fine Art and Antiques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J. & Luff, P. (2010). Video in Qualitative Research: Analysing Social Interaction in Everyday Life. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heath, C. & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Luff, P., Sanchez-Svensson, M. & Nicholls, M. (2018). Exchanging implements: the micro-materialities of multidisciplinary work in the operating theatre. Sociology of Health & Illness, 40(2), 297–313.Google Scholar
Heath, C. & Mondada, L. (2019). Transparency and embodied action: turn organization and fairness in complex institutional environments. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(3), 274–302.Google Scholar
Heath, C. & Vom Lehn, D. (2004). Configuring reception: (dis-)regarding the “spectator” in museums and galleries. Theory, Culture & Society, 21(6), 43–65.Google Scholar
Hennion, A. (2001). Music lovers: taste as performance. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(5), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennion, A. (2005). Pragmatics of taste. In Jacobs, M. and Hanrahan, N. (eds.) The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture. Oxford/Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 131–144.Google Scholar
Hennion, A. (2007). Those things that hold us together: taste and sociology. Cultural Sociology, 1(1), 97–114.Google Scholar
Hennion, A. (2015). Paying attention: what is tasting wine about? In Berthoin Antal, A., Hutter, M. and Stark, D. (eds.) Moments of Valuation: Exploring Sites of Dissonance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 37–56.Google Scholar
Hennion, A. (2017a). Attachments, you say?…How a concept collectively emerges in one research group. Journal of Cultural Economy, 10(1), 112–121.Google Scholar
Hennion, A. (2017b). From valuation to instauration: on the double pluralism of values. Valuation Studies, 5(1), 69–81.Google Scholar
Hennion, A. & Teil, G. (2004). Le goût du vin: oour une sociologie de l’attention. In Nahoum-Grappe, V. and Vincent, O. (eds.) Le goût des belles choses. Ethnologie de la relation esthétique. Paris: Maison des sciences de l’homme, pp. 111–126.Google Scholar
Hepburn, A. & Mandelbaum, J. (2018). Analysing burp sequences. The Psychologist, 31, 28–47.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–345.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced responses to assessments: a method of modifying agreement/disagreement. In Ford, C. E., Fox, B. A. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.) The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 196–224.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012a). The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 30–52.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2012b). Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(1), 15–38.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 359–417.Google Scholar
Herzfeld, M. (2001). Anthropology: Theoretical Practice in Culture and Society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. & Heath, C. (2000). Embodied reference: a study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(12), 1855–1878.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. & Pilnick, A. (2007). Knowing bodies at work: embodiment and ephemeral teamwork in anaesthesia. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1395–1416.Google Scholar
Hirschauer, S. (2004). Praktiken und ihre Körper. Über materielle Partizipanden des Tuns. In Hörning, K. and Reuter, J. (eds.) Doing Culture. Zum Begriff der Praxis in der gegenwärtigen soziologischen Theorie. Bielefeld: Transkript, pp. 73–91.Google Scholar
Hoey, E. M. (2018). Drinking for speaking: the multimodal organization of drinking in conversation. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(1).Google Scholar
Howes, D. (ed.). (1991) Varieties of Sensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Howes, D. (2003). Sensual Relations: Engaging the Senses in Culture and Social Theory. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Howes, D. (2015). The science of sensory evaluation: an ethnographic critique. In Drazin, A. and Küchler, S. (eds.) Social Life of Materials: Studies in Materials and Society. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 81–97.Google Scholar
Huisman, J. L. A. & Majid, A. (2018). Psycholinguistic variables matter in odor naming. Memory & Cognition, 46(4), 577–588.Google Scholar
Hurdley, R. & Dicks, B. (2011). In-between practice: working in the “thirdspace” of sensory and multimodal methodology. Qualitative Research, 11(3), 277–292.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. H. (1974). Ways of speaking. In Bauman, R. and Sherzer, J. (eds.) Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 433–452.Google Scholar
Inglis, D. (2019). Wine globalization: longer-term dynamics and contemporary patterns. In Inglis, D. and Almila, A-M. (eds.) The Globalization of Wine. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 21–46.Google Scholar
Ingold, T. (2000). The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ishii, R. & O’Mahony, M. (1987). Taste sorting and naming: can taste concepts be misrepresented by traditional psychophysical labelling systems? Chemical Senses, 12(1), 37–51.Google Scholar
Ivarsson, J. & Greiffenhagen, C. (2015). The organization of turn-taking in pool skate sessions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(4), 406–429.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, N., Vinson, D. & Vigliocco, G. (2007). How does it hurt, “kiri-kiri” or “siku-siku”? Japanese mimetic words of pain perceived by Japanese speakers and English speakers. In Minami, M. (ed.) Applying Theory and Research to Learning Japanese as a Foreign Language. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 2–19.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S., Bartlett, M., Manns, H. & Willoughby, L. (2019). The challenges of multimodality and multi-sensoriality: methodological issues in analyzing tactile signed interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 143, 215–227.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1981). The abominable Ne? An exploration of post-response pursuit of response. In Schröder, P. and Steger, H. (eds.) Dialogforschung: Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache. Düsseldorf: Schwann, pp. 53–88.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1983). On exposed and embedded correction in conversation. Studium Linguistik, 14, 58–68.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1985). An exercise in the transcription and analysis of laughter. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press, pp. 25–34.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Lerner, G. H. (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. pp. 13–31.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (2018). Repairing the Broken Surface of Talk: Managing Problems in Speaking, Hearing, and Understanding in Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (1981). The rejection of advice: managing the problematic convergence of a “troubles-telling” and a “service encounter.” Journal of Pragmatics, 5(5), 399–422.Google Scholar
Jonas, H. (1954). The nobility of sight. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 14(4), 507–519.Google Scholar
Jutte, R. (2005). A History of the Senses: From Antiquity to Cyberspace. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kaeppler, K. & Mueller, F. (2013). Odor classification: a review of factors influencing perception-based odor arrangements. Chemical Senses, 38(3), 189–209.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E. & Keisanen, T. (2012). Linguistic and embodied formats for making (concrete) offers. Discourse Studies, 14(5), 587–611.Google Scholar
Karrebæk, M. S. (2012). What’s in your lunch box today? Health, respectability and ethnicity in the kindergarten classroom. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22, 1–22.Google Scholar
Karrebæk, M. S. (2014). Rye bread and halal: enregisterment of food practices in the primary classroom. Language and Communication, 34, 17–34.Google Scholar
Karrebæk, M. S., Riley, K. C. & Cavanaugh, J. R. (2018). Food and language: production, consumption, and circulation of meaning and value. Annual Review of Anthropology, 47, 17–32.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, C. (1979). Art and artists in the context of Kwoma society. In Mead, S. (ed.) Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania: Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, pp. 310–334.Google Scholar
Kearney, R. & Treanor, B. (eds.). (2015). Carnal Hermeneutics. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar
Keel, S. (2016). Socialization: Parent-Child Interaction in Everyday Life. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. (2018). What does embodied interaction tell us about grammar? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L. & Ogden, R. (2020). Sounds on the margins of language at the heart of interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1975). Some functions of the face in a kissing round. Semiotica, 15(4), 299–334.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1985). Some uses of gesture. In Tannen, D. and Saville-Troike, M. (eds.) Perspectives on Silence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. pp. 215–234.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, K. H. (2017). Using conversation analysis in the lab. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. & Traverso, V. (eds.). (2008). Les interactions en site commercial: Invariants et variations. Lyon: ENS Éditions.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2005). Gaze as social control: how very young children differentiate “the look” from a “mere look” by their adult caregivers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(4), 417–449.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2006). “Calm down!”: the role of gaze in the interactional management of hysteria by the police. Discourse Studies, 8(6), 745–770.Google Scholar
Kidwell, M. (2009). Gaze shift as an interactional resource for very young children. Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 145–160.Google Scholar
Klatzky, R. L. & Lederman, S. J. (2007). Object recognition by touch. In Rieser, J. J., Ashmead, D., Ebner, F., and Corn, A. (eds.) Blindness and Brain Plasticity in Navigation and Object Perception. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 185–207.Google Scholar
Klein, J. (2007). Redefining Cantonese cuisine in post-Mao Guangzhou. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 70(3), 511–537.Google Scholar
Koivisto, A, & Halonen, M. (2009). Maksaminen osana R-kioskiasiointia [Paying as part of convenience store encounters]. In Lappalainen, H. and Raevaara, L. (eds.) Kieli kioskilla: Tutkimuksia kioskiasioinnin rutiineista [Talk at convenience stores: Studies on the routines in convenience store encounters]. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society, pp. 120–152.Google Scholar
Korsmeyer, C. (1999). Making Sense of Taste: Food and Philosophy. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C. & Feltovich, P. (2011). “Can you see the cystic artery yet?”: a simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (2), 521–541.Google Scholar
Koschmann, T. & Zemel, A. (2014). Instructed objects. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. and Rauniomaa, M. (eds.) Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 357–378.Google Scholar
Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, L. (2001). Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuipers, J. C. (1984). Matters of taste in Weyéwa. Anthropological Linguistics, 26(1), 84–101.Google Scholar
Kuroshima, S. (2010). Another look at the service encounter: progressivity, intersubjectivity, and trust in a Japanese sushi restaurant. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(3), 856–869.Google Scholar
Kuroshima, S. (2014). The structural organization of ordering and serving sushi. In Szatrowski, P. E. (ed.) Language and Food: Verbal and Nonverbal Experiences. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 54–75.Google Scholar
Lahne, J. (2018). Standard sensations: the production of objective experience from industrial technique. The Senses & Society, 13(1), 6–18.Google Scholar
Lahne, J. & Spackman, C. (2018). Introduction to accounting for taste. The Senses and Society, 13(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
Lahne, J. & Trubek, A. B. (2014). “A little information excites us.”: consumer sensory experience of vermont artisan cheese as active practice. Appetite, 78, 129–138.Google Scholar
Largey, G. & Watson, D. (1972). The sociology of odours. American Journal of Sociology, 77, 1021–1034.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (2004). How to talk about the body? The normative dimension of science studies. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 205–229.Google Scholar
Latour, B. & Callon, M. (1997). “Tu ne calculeras pas!” ou comment symétriser le don et le capital. La Revue du MAUSS, 9, 45–70 (“Thou shall not calculate!” or how to symmetricalize gift and capital. Translation unpublished, see https://is.muni.cz/el/fss/jaro2016/SOC603/um/How_To_Symmetricalize_Gift_and_Capital.pdf)Google Scholar
Laurier, E. (2013). Encounters at the counter: the relationship between regulars and staff. In Tolmie, P. and Rouncefield, M. (eds.) Ethnomethodology at Play. Farnham, Surey, UK: Ashgate, pp. 287–308.Google Scholar
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
Lavric, E. & Konzett, C. (eds.). (2009 ). Food and Language: Sprache und Essen. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Law, L. (2001). Home cooking: filipino women and geographies of the senses in Hong Kong. Ecumene, 8(3), 264–283.Google Scholar
Lawless, H. T. (1984). Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. Journal of Food Science, 49, 120–123.Google Scholar
Lawless, H. T. & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Leder Mackley, K. & Pink, S. (2013). From emplaced knowing to interdisciplinary knowledge. The Senses and Society, 8(3), 335–353.Google Scholar
Lederman, S. J. & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Hand movements: a window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19(3), 342–368.Google Scholar
Lederman, S. J. & Klatzky, R. L. (1990). Haptic classification of common objects: knowledge-driven exploration. Cognitive Psychology, 22(4), 421–459.Google Scholar
Leeds‐Hurwitz, W. (1987). The social history of the natural history of an interview: a multidisciplinary investigation of social communication. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 20(1–4), 1–51.Google Scholar
Le Guérer, A. ([1988] 1992). Scent: The Mysterious and Essential Powers of Smell. New York: Turtle Bay Books [Les Pouvoirs de l’Odeur. Paris: Odile Jacob].Google Scholar
Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: the context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society, 32(2), 177–201.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 103–130.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. ([1964] 1983). The Raw and the Cooked: Mythologiques 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Mythologiques 1. Le cru et le cuit. Paris: Plon]Google Scholar
Liberman, K. (2013). The phenomenology of coffee tasting. In More Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: SUNY, pp. 215–266.Google Scholar
Liberman, K. (2018). Objectivation practices. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 1(2).Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. (2017). Showing objects in Skype video-mediated conversations: from showing gestures to showing sequences. Journal of Pragmatics, 110, 63–82.Google Scholar
Lindström, A. (2005). Language as social action: a study of how senior citizens request assistance with practical tasks in the Swedish home help service. In Hakulinen, A. and Selting, M. (eds.) Syntax and Lexis in Conversation, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 209–230.Google Scholar
Lindström, A. & Heinemann, T. (2009). Good enough: low-grade assessments in caregiving situations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 309–328.Google Scholar
Lindström, A. & Mondada, L. (2009). Assessments in social interaction: introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 299–308.Google Scholar
Lindwall, O. & Ekström, A. (2012). Instruction-in-interaction: a teaching and learning of a manual skill. Human Studies, 35 (1), 27–49.Google Scholar
Lindwall, O. & Lymer, G. (2014). Inquiries of the body: novice questions and the instructable observability of endodontic scenes. Discourse Studies, 16(2), 271–294.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (2004). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, N. (2011a). The gift in interaction: a study of “picking-up the bill.” The British Journal of Sociology, 62(4), 718–738.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, N. (2011b). The delicacy of the gift: Passing donations and leaving change. Discourse & Society, 22(2), 155–174.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, N. (2015). Microstructures of economic action: talk, interaction and the bottom line. The British Journal of Sociology, 66(3), 486–511.Google Scholar
Llewellyn, N. & Hindmarsh, J. (2013). The order problem: Inference and interaction in interactive service work. Human Relations, 66(11), 1401–1426.Google Scholar
Lorimer, H. (2005). Cultural geography: The busyness of being “more-than-representational.” Progress in Human Geography, 29, 83–94.Google Scholar
Low, K. (2006). Presenting the self, the social body, and the olfactory: managing smells in everyday life experiences. Sociological Perspectives, 49, 607–631.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 291–312.Google Scholar
Luff, P. & Heath, C. (2015). Transcribing embodied action. In Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. E. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 367–390.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (1991). Method: measurement – ordinary and scientific measurement as ethnomethodolgical phenomena. In Button, G. (ed.) Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 77–108.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2002). From naturally occurring data to naturally organized ordinary activities: comment on Speer. Discourse Studies, 4(4), 531–537.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. (2006). Cognitive activities without cognition? Ethnomethodological investigations of selected “cognitive” topics. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 95–104.Google Scholar
MacDonald, K. I. (2013). The morality of cheese: paradox of defensive localism in a transnational cultural economy. Geoforum, 44, 93–102.Google Scholar
MacDougall, D. (1995). The subjective voice in ethnographic film. In Devereaux, L. and Hillman, R. (eds.) Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology, and Photography. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 217–255.Google Scholar
MacDougall, D. (2006). The Corporeal Image: Film, Ethnography, and the Senses. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Macpherson, F. (ed.). (2011). The Senses: Classic and Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, A. (ed.). (2007). Field Manual. Vol. 10. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Majid, A. (2015). Cultural factors shape olfactory language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(11), 629–630.Google Scholar
Majid, A. & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130, 266–270.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Burenhult, N., Stensmyr, M., de Valk, J. & Hansson, B. S. (2018). Olfactory language and abstraction across cultures. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B37320170139.Google Scholar
Majid, A. & Kruspe, N. (2018). Hunter-gatherer olfaction is special. Current Biology, 28(3), 409–413.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L., Emmorey, K., Nicodemus, B., O’Grady, L., Woll, B. et al. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (45), 11369–11376.Google Scholar
Manalansan, M. F. (2006). Queer intersections: sexuality and gender in migration studies. International Migration Review, 40(1), 224–249.Google Scholar
Mann, A. (2018). Sensory science research on taste: an ethnography of two laboratory experiments in Western Europe. Food and Foodways, 26(1), 23–39.Google Scholar
Manning, P. (2012). Semiotics of Drink and Drinking. London: Continuum International Publishing.Google Scholar
Marlaire, C. & Maynard, D. (1990). Standardized testing as an interactional phenomenon. Sociology of Education, 63, 83–101.Google Scholar
Manzo, J. (2010). Coffee, connoisseurship, and an ethnomethodologically-informed sociology of taste. Human Studies, 33(2/3), 141–155.Google Scholar
Marks, L. U. (2000). The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Marks, L. U. (2002). Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Martin, M. (1992). Sight and touch. In Crane, T. (ed.) The Contents of Experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–215.Google Scholar
Marcoux, J.-S. (2009). Escaping the gift economy. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(4), 671–685.Google Scholar
Mauss, M. ([1936] 1973). Techniques of the body. Economy and Society, 2(1), 70–88. [Les techniques du corps. Journal de Psychologie, XXXII, ne 3-4].Google Scholar
Mauss, M. ([1923–1924] 1990). The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. London: W. W. Norton [Essai sur le don: forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques. L’Année Sociologique, NS(1), 30–180].Google Scholar
McIlvenny, P. (2020). The future of “video” in video-based qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 20(6), 800–818.Google Scholar
McIlvenny, P., Broth, M. & Haddington, P. (eds.). (2009). Communicating place, space, and mobility. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1879–2136.Google Scholar
McIlvenny, P., Broth, M. & Haddington, P. (eds.). (2014). Moving together: mobile formations in interaction. Special issue of Space and Culture, 17(2), 104–190.Google Scholar
McQuown, N. A. (ed.). ([1955] 1971). The Natural History of an Interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Library.Google Scholar
Mead, M. & Métraux, R. (1953). The Study of Culture at a Distance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Meneley, A. (2008). Oleo-signs and quali-signs: the qualities of olive oil. Ethnos, 73, 303–326.Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception (Trans. Smith, C.). London: Routledge [Phénoménologie de la perception. Paris: Gallimard, 1945].Google Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). Visible and the Invisible (Trans. Lingis, A.). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press [Le visible et l’invisible. Paris: Gallimard, 1964]Google Scholar
Merritt, M. (1976). On questions following questions in service encounters. Language in Society, 5, 315–357.Google Scholar
Merritt, M. (1978). On the use of “O.K.” in service encounters. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 42, Austin, TX: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Meyer, C., Streeck, J. & Jordan, J. S. (eds.). (2017). Intercorporeality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, C. & von Wedelstaedt, U. (eds.). (2017). Moving Bodies in Interaction-Interacting Bodies in Motion: Intercorporeality, Interkinesthesia and Enaction in Sports. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mintz, S. W. (1985). Sweetness and Power: The Place of Sugar in Modern History. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mintz, S. W. & Du Bois, C. M. (2002). The anthropology of food and eating. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31(1), 99–119.Google Scholar
Moerman, M. & Sacks, H. (1988). On “understanding” in the analysis of natural conversation. In Moerman, M. (ed.) Talking Culture: Ethnography and Conversation Analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 180–186.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2006). Video recording as the reflexive preservation-configuration of phenomenal features for analysis. In Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J. and Soeffner, H.-G. (eds.) Video Analysis: Methodology and Methods: Qualitative Audiovisual Data Analysis in Sociology. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007a). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007b). Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 809–821.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2008). Using video for a sequential and multimodal analysis of social interaction: videotaping institutional telephone calls. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qualitative Social Research, 9(3).Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009a). The methodic organization of talking and eating: assessments in dinner conversations. Food Quality and Preference, 20(8), 558–571.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009b). Emergent focused interactions in public places: a systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(10), 1977–1997.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009c). Multimodalità e multi-attività nelle conversazioni a tavola. In Fatigante, M., Mariottini, L., Sciubba, M. E. (eds.) Lingua e società. Scritti in onore di Franca Orletti. Roma: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2009d). The embodied and negotiated production of assessments in instructed actions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 42(4), 329–361.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011a). The organization of concurrent courses of action in surgical demonstrations. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. and LeBaron, C. (eds.) Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 207–226.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011b). Understanding as an embodied, situated and sequential achievement in interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 542–552.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2011c). The management of knowledge discrepancies and of epistemic changes in institutional interactions. In Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (eds.) The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 27–57.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2012a). Deixis: an integrated interactional multimodal analysis. In Bergmann, P. and Brenning, J. (eds.) Prosody and Embodiment in Interactional Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 173–206.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2012b). The conversation analytic approach to data collection. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 32–56.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013a). Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 39–68.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013b). Video as a tool in sociology and anthropology. In Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E. and McNeill, D. (eds.) Handbook Body, Language, and Communication. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 978–988.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2013c). Displaying, contesting and negotiating epistemic authority in social interaction: descriptions and questions in guided visits. Discourse Studies, 15(5), 597–626.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014a). Cooking instructions and the shaping of things in the kitchen. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, Y. and Rauniomaa, M. (eds.) Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 199–226.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014b). Requesting immediate action in the surgical operating room: time, embodied resources and praxeological embeddedness. In Couper-Kuhlen, E. and Drew, P. (eds.) Requesting in Social Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 271–304.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014c). Pointing, talk and the bodies: reference and joint attention as embodied interactional achievements. In Seyfeddinipur, M. and Gullberg, M. (eds.) From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Utterance in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 95–124.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014d). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014e). Bodies in action: multimodal analysis of walking and talking. Language and Dialogue, 4(3), 357–403.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014f). Shooting video as a research activity: video making as a form of proto-analysis. In Broth, M., Laurier, E. and Mondada, L. (eds.) Studies of Video Practices: Video at Work. Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 33–62.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2014g). The temporal orders of multiactivity. In Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L. and Nevile, M. (eds.) Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 33–75.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(2), 2–32.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2017). Imperatives in action: precision timing and timed embeddedness in embodied courses of action. In Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. and Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.) Imperatives in Interaction. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 65–101.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018a). Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85–106.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018b). Visual practices: video studies, multimodality and multisensoriality. In Favareau, D. (ed.) Co-operative Engagements in Intertwined Semiosis: Essays in Honour of Charles Goodwin. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, pp. 304–325.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018c). The multimodal interactional organization of tasting: practices of tasting cheese in gourmet shops. Discourse Studies, 20(6), 743–769.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018d). Transcription in linguistics. In Litosseliti, L. (ed.) Research Methods in Linguistics (2nd edition). London: Bloomsbury, pp. 85–115.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2018e). Turn-initial voilà in closings in French: reaffirming authority and responsibility over the sequence. In Heritage, J. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (eds.) Between Turn and Sequence: Turn-Initial Particles Across Languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 371–412.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019a). Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 47–62.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019b). Transcribing silent actions: a multimodal approach of sequence organization. Social Interaction: Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2(1).Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019c). Rethinking bodies and objects in social interaction: a multimodal and multisensorial approach to tasting. In Kissmann, U. and van Loon, J. (eds.) Discussing New Materialism. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer, pp. 109–134.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019d). Participants’ orientations to material and sensorial features of objects: looking, touching, smelling and tasting while requesting products in shops. Gesprächsforschung, 20, 461–494.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2019e). Practices for showing, looking and videorecording: the interactional establishment of a common focus of attention. In Reber, C. and Gerhard, E. (eds.) Embodied Activities in Face-to-Face and Mediated Settings: Social Encounters in Time and Space. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 63–104.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2020a). Orchestrating multi-sensoriality in tasting sessions: sensing bodies, normativity, and language. Symbolic Interaction, 44, 63–86.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2020b). Sensorial explorations of food: how professionals and amateurs touch cheese in gourmet shops. In Cekaite, A. and Mondada, L. (eds.) Touch in Social Interaction: Touch, Language, and Body. London: Routlege.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2020c). Audible sniffs: smelling-in-interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 53(1), 140–163.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (in press-a). Video data. In Flick, U. et al. (eds.) Sage Handbook on Methods in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (in press-b). Organisation multimodale de la participation: corporéité, matérialité et sensorialité dans l’interaction sociale. Langage et Société.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (in press-c). How salespersons ascribe to customers the decision to buy a product: action ascription, local ecology, and multimodality. In Deppermann, A. and Haugh, M. (eds.) Action Ascription. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L., Bänninger, J., Bouaouina, S. A., Gauthier, G., Hänggi, P., Koda, M., Svensson, H. & Tekin, B. S. (2020). Doing paying during the COVID-19 pandemic. Discourse Studies, 22(6), 720–752.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. & Fele, G. (2020). Descrittori visivi per l’assaggio professionale: lessico, sensorialità e standardizzazione. Rivista Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, XLIX (3), 651-681.Google Scholar
Mondada, L., Monteiro, D. & Tekin, B. S. (2020). The tactility and visibility of kissing: intercorporeal configurations of kissing bodies in family photography sessions. In Cekaite, A. and Mondada, L. (eds.) Touch in Social interaction: Touch, Language and Body. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. & Sorjonen, M.-L. (2016). First and subsequent requests in French and Finnish kiosks. Language in Society, 45, 733–765.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. & Svinhufvud, K. (2016). Writing-in-interaction: Studying writing as a multimodal phenomenon in social interaction. Language and Dialogue, 6, 1–53.Google Scholar
Mondémé, C. & Kreplak, Y. (2014). Artworks as touchable objects. Guiding perception in a museum tour for blind people. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., and Rauniomaa, M. (eds.) Interacting with Objects. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 289–311.Google Scholar
Montagu, A. (1986). Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin (3rd Edition). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Moore, R. J. (2008). When names fail: Referential practice in face-to-face service encounters. Language in Society, 37, 385–413.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. J. (1977). Molyneux’s Question: Vision, Touch and the Philosophy of Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mortensen, K. & Wagner, J. (2019). Inspection sequences: multisensorial inspections of unfamiliar objects. Gesprächsforschung, 20, 399–343.Google Scholar
Mukerji, C. (2015). The material turn. In Scott, R. A., Kosslyn, S. M. and Buchmann, M. C. (eds.) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Muniesa, F. & Trébuchet-Breitwiller, A.-S. (2010). Becoming a measuring instrument. Journal of Cultural Economy, 3(3), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, C. S. (1904). The taste-names of primitive peoples. British Journal of Psychology, 1, 117–126.Google Scholar
Ness, S. A. (1992). Body, Movement and Culture: Kinesthetic and Visual Symbolism in a Philippine Community. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, M. (2015). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevile, M. (2019). Objects of agreement: placing pins to progress collaborative activity in custom dressmaking. In Day, D. and Wagner, J. (eds.) Objects, Bodies and Work Practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. & Rauniomaa, M. (eds.). (2014). Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2000). Seeing what one sees: perception, emotion, and activity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 105–123.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2007). Hand touching hand: referential practice at a Japanese midwife house. Human Studies, 30(3), 199–217.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2011). The embodied organization of a real-time fetus: the visible and the invisible in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Social Studies of Science, 41(3), 309–336.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2014). Instructed perception in prenatal ultrasound examinations. Discourse Studies. 16(2), 217–246.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2016). Syntactical constructions and tactile orientations: procedural utterances and procedures in massage therapy. Journal of Pragmatics, 98, 18–35.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2017). The perceived body and embodied vision in interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(2), 110–128.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. (2019). Postscript: thing and space. In Day, D. and Wagner, J. (eds.) Objects, Bodies and Work Practice. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, pp. 285–294.Google Scholar
Nishizaka, A. & Sunaga, M. (2015). Conversing while massaging: multidimensional asymmetries of multiple activities in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 200–229.Google Scholar
Noble, A. C., Arnold, R. A., Masuda, B. M., Pecore, S. D., Schmidt, J. O. & Stern, P. M. (1984). Progress towards a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 35, 107–109.Google Scholar
Norton, M. (2006). Tasting empire: chocolate and the European internalization of Mesoamerican aesthetics. The American Historical Review, 111(3), 660–691.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1979), Transcription as theory. In Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. B. (eds.) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 43–72.Google Scholar
Ochs, E., Pontecorvo, C. & Fasulo, A. (1996). Socializing taste. Ethnos, 61(1–2), 7–46.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. & Shohet, M. (2006). The cultural structuring of mealtime socialization. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 111, 35–49.Google Scholar
Ogden, R. (2006). Phonetics and social action in agreements and disagreements. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(10), 1752–1775.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, M. & Alba, M. (1980). Taste Descriptions in Spanish and English. Chemical Senses, 5(1), 47–62.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, M. & Ishii, R. (1986). A comparison of English and Japanese taste languages: taste descriptive methodology, codability and the umami taste. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 161–174.Google Scholar
O’Mahony, M. & Tsang, T. (1980). A preliminary comparison of Cantonese and American-english as taste languages. British Journal of Psychology, 71(2), 221–226.Google Scholar
O’Shaughnessy, B. (1989). The sense of touch. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 67, 37–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oshima, S. (2007). A multimodal analysis of the service-assessment sequence in haircutting interaction. Proceedings of the Symposium about Language and Society-Austin (SALSA), XV 4–6 April 2007. Austin TX: University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Oshima, S. (2014). Balancing multiple roles through consensus: making revisions in haircutting sessions. Text and Talk, 34(6), 713–736.Google Scholar
Oshima, S. & Streeck, J. (2015). Coordinating talk and practical action: the case of hair salon service assessments. Pragmatics and Society, 6(4), 538–564.Google Scholar
Parr, W. V. (2008). Application of cognitive psychology to advance understanding of wine expertise. In Kiefer, K. H. (ed.) Applied Psychology Research Trends. New York: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 119–140.Google Scholar
Paterson, M. (2007). The Senses of Touch: Haptics, Affects and Technologies. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Paxson, H. (2010). Cheese cultures: transforming American tastes and traditions. Gastronomica, 10(4), 35–47.Google Scholar
Paxson, H. (2013). The Life of Cheese: Crafting Food and Value in America. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2006). Facial expression in an assessment. In Knoblauch, H., Schnettler, B., Raab, J. and Soeffner, H.-G. (eds.) Video Analysis: Methodology and Methods. Bern: Lang, pp. 127–142.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2012). Facial expression and interactional regulation of emotion. In Peräkylä, A. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (eds.) Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peräkylä, A. & Sorjonen, M. L. (eds.). (2012). Emotion in Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. J. (2016). The taste machine: sense, subjectivity, and statistics in the california wine world. Social Studies of Science, 46 (3), 461–481.Google Scholar
Pitsch, K. (2012). Museumsexponat, Alltagsobjekt oder Turngerät? Zur Konstitution von Objekten im Interaktion. In Hausendorf, H., Mondada, L., and Schmitt, R. (eds.) Raum als interaktive Resource. Tübingen: Narr, pp. 233–274.Google Scholar
Placencia, M. E. (2004). Rapport-building activities in corner shop interactions. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8(2), 215–245.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1980). Telling my side: “limited access” as a fishing device. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 186–198.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–101.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1998). Multiple interpretations of context: how are they useful? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 31(1), 123–132.Google Scholar
Psathas, G. & Anderson, T. (1990). The “practices” of transcription in conversation analysis. Semiotica, 78(1–2), 75–100.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, S. (1997). Poetics and Politics of Tuareg Aging: Life Course and Personal Destiny in Niger. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Ratcliffe, M. (2008). Touch and situatedness. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 16(3), 299–322.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2000). Harold Garfinkel. In Ritzer, G. (ed.) Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. London: Blackwell, pp. 122–153.Google Scholar
Rawls, A. W. (2005). Garfinkel’s conception of time. Time & Society, 14(2–3), 163–190.Google Scholar
Raymond, C., Robinson, J., Fox, B., Thompson, S. & Montiegel, K. (2020). Modulating action through minimization: syntax in the service of offering and requesting. Language in Society, 50(1), 53–91.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: yes/no type interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939–967.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. & Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relationships: owning grandchildren. Language in Society, 35(5), 677–705.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices: a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263.Google Scholar
Reckwitz, A. (2008). Subjekt/Identität: die Produktion und Subversion des Individuums. In Moebius, S. (ed.) Poststrukturalistische Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 75–92.Google Scholar
Reinarz, J. (2014). Past Scents: Historical Perspectives on Smell. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Relieu, M. (1994). Les catégories dans l’action: l’apprentissage des traversées de rue par des non-voyants. Raisons Pratiques, 5, 185–218.Google Scholar
Relieu, M. (1997). L’observabilité des situations publiques problématiques: genèse des propositions d’aide a des non-voyants. In A. Marcarino, (ed.) Analisi della conversazione e prospettive di ricerca in etnometodologia: Atti del Convegno internazionale (Urbino, 11–13 luglio 1994). Urbino: QuattroVenti, pp. 219–234.Google Scholar
Richardson, E. & Stokoe, E. H. (2014). The order of ordering: objects, requests and embodied conduct in a public bar. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T. and Rauniomaa, M. (eds.) Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 31–56.Google Scholar
Ritchie, I. (1991). Fusion of the faculties: a study of the language of the senses in Hausaland. In Howes, D. (ed.) The Varieties of Sensory Experience: A Sourcebook in the Anthropology of the Senses. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 192–202.Google Scholar
Rivers, W. H. R. (1905). Observations on the senses of the Todas. British Journal of Psychology, 1904‐1920, (1), 321–396.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (1998). Getting down to business: talk, gaze, and body orientation during openings of doctor-patient consultations. Human Communication Research, 25(1), 97–123.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. (ed.). (2016). Accountability in Social Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. D. & Stivers, T. (2001). Achieving activity transitions in physician-patient encounters: from history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 253–298.Google Scholar
Rodaway, P. (1994). Sensuous Geographies: Body, Sense, and Place. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5(3), 161–200.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012a) Gaze behaviour in face-to-face interaction. PhD dissertation, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2012b). Gaze in conversation. In Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 308–329.Google Scholar
Rouby, C., Schaal, B., Dubois, D., Gervais, R. & Holley, A. (2002). Olfaction, Taste, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Routarinne, S., Tanio, L. E. & Burdelski, M. (eds.). (2020). Special issue: human-to-human touch in institutional settings. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3/1.Google Scholar
Ryoo, H.-K. (2005). Achieving friendly interactions: a study of service encounters between Korean shopkeepers and African-American customers. Discourse & Society, 16(1), 79–105.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In Gumperz, J. J. and Hymes, D. (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Rinehart & Winston, pp. 325–345.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1984). Notes on methodology. In Atkinson, J. M. (ed.) Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 21–27.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., Dirksmeyer, T. et al. (2015). Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 31–60.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R. (1997). Practices and actions: a Wittgensteinian critique of Bourdieu and Giddens. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 27(3), 283–308.Google Scholar
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E. (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Scheflen, A. E. & Ashcraft, N. (1976). Human Territories: How We Behave in Space-Time. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–1095.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In Sudnow, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 75–119.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some gestures’ relation to talk. In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 266–295.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defense of intersubjectivity in conversation. American Journal of Sociology, 97(5), 1295–1345.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: a partial sketch of a systematics. In Fox, B. A. (ed.) Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 437–485.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffman, S. S. & Erickson, R. P. (1971). A psychophysical model for gustatory quality. Physiology & Behavior, 7(4), 617–622, IN11-IN12, 623–633.Google Scholar
Schütz, A. (1962). The Problem of Social Reality: Collected Papers I. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seeger, A. (1981). Nature and Society in Central Brazil: The Suya Indians of Mato Grosso. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Senft, G., Majid, A. & Levinson, S. (2007). The language of taste. In Majid, A. (ed.) Field Manual, Vol. 10. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, pp. 42–45.Google Scholar
Serres, M. ([1985] 2008). The Five Senses: A Philosophy of Mingled Bodies. New York: Continuum [Les cinq sens. Paris: Grasset].Google Scholar
Seuren, L. M. & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or elaboration: what do yes/no declaratives want? Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 188–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sezille, C., Fournel, A., Rouby, C., Rinck, F. & Bensafi, M. (2014). Hedonic appreciation and verbal description of pleasant and unpleasant odors in untrained, trainee cooks, flavorists, and perfumers. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(12).Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (2011). Changing tastes: how foods tasted in the early modern period and how they taste now. The Hans Rausing Lecture. Salvia Småskrifter, no. 14. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (2012). The tastes of wine: towards a cultural history. Rivista di estetica, 51, 49–94.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. (2016). A taste of science: making the subjective objective in the California wine world. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 436–460.Google Scholar
Shapin, S. & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sharrock, W. W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In Turner, R. (ed.) Ethnomethodology: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (ed.). (2009). The Corporeal Turn: An Interdisciplinary Reader. Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Shepherd, G. M. (2004). The human sense of smell: are we better than we think? PLoS Biology, 2(5), 572–575.Google Scholar
Sherry, J. F. Jr., McGrath, M. A. and Levy, S. J. (1993). The dark side of the gift. Journal of Business Research, 28(3), 225–244.Google Scholar
Shields-Argelès, C. (2015). The comte aroma wheel: history of an invention, ethnography of a practice: a look at the early years. In McWilliams, M. (ed.) Food and Communication. Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery, London: Prospect Books, pp. 363–373.Google Scholar
Shields-Argelès, C. (2018). Tasting Comté cheese, returning to the whole: the jury terroir as ritual practice. In Counihan, C. and Højlund, S. (eds.) Making Taste Public: Ethnographies of Food and the Senses. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 83–96.Google Scholar
Shields-Argelès, C. (2019). A cooperative model of tasting: Comté cheese and the jury terroir. Food, Culture & Society, 22(2), 168–185.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. (2014). The architecture of intersubjectivity revisited. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P. and Sidnell, J. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 364–399.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds.). (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. (1997). Discourses of Counselling: HIV Counselling as Social Interaction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2006). Old wine, new ethnographic lexicography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 481–496.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. ([1908] 1924) Sociology of the senses: visual interaction. In Park, R. and Burgess, R. (eds.) Introduction to the Science of Sociology. New York: Greenwood Press [Exkurs über die Soziologie der Sinne].Google Scholar
Simmel, G. ([1908] 2009). Sociology: Inquiries into the Construction of Social Forms. Vol. 2. Translated and edited by Blasi, A. J., Jacobs, A. K. and Kanjirathinkal, M.. Leiden/Boston: Brill. [Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung].Google Scholar
Sneijder, P. & te Molder, H. F. M. (2006). Disputing taste: food pleasure as an achievement in interaction. Appetite, 46(1), 107–116.Google Scholar
Sobchack, V. C. (2004). Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, G. E. (1990). Psychology of novice and expert wine talk. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 495–517.Google Scholar
Sorabji, R. (1971). Aristotle on demarcating the five senses. Philosophical Review, 80(1), 55–79.Google Scholar
Sorjonen, M.-L., Raevaara, L. & Couper-Kuhlen, E. (eds.). (2017). Imperative Turns at Talk: The Design of Directives in Action. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spackman, C. (2018). Perfumer, chemist, machine: gas chromatography and the industrial search to “improve” flavor. The Senses and Society, 13(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
Spackman, C. & Lahne, J. (2019). Sensory labor: considering the work of taste in the food system. Food, Culture & Society, 22(2), 142–151.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2004), “No no no” and other types of multiple sayings in social interaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 260–293.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005a). Non-antibiotic treatment recommendations: delivery formats and implications for parent resistance. Social Science & Medicine, 60(5), 949–964.Google Scholar
Stivers, T. (2005b) Modified repeats: one method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(2), 131–158.Google Scholar
Stoller, P. (1984). Sound in songhay cultural experience. American Ethnologist, 11, 559–570.Google Scholar
Stoller, P. (1989). Taste of Ethnographic Things: The Senses in Anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Stoller, P. (1997). Sensuous Scholarship (Contemporary Ethnography). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication: I. Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60(4), 275–299.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (1996). How to do things with things: objets trouvés and symbolization. Human Studies, 19(4), 365–384.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2013). Interaction and the living body. Special issue on multimodal interaction, Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 69–90.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2017). Self-Making Man: A Day of Action, Life, and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2018). Grammaticalization and bodily action: do they go together? Research on Language & Social Interaction, 21(1), 26–32.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C. & LeBaron, C. (eds.). (2011). Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, A. (2020). Deixis, meta-perceptive gaze practices, and the interactional achievement of joint attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.Google Scholar
Sudnow, D. (1972). Temporal parameters of interpersonal observation. In Sudnow, D. (ed.) Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 259–279.Google Scholar
Summers, D. (1987). The Judgment of Sense: Renaissance Naturalism and the Rise of Aesthetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sutton, D. E. (2006). Cooking skill, the senses and memory: the fate of practical knowledge. In Edwards, E., Gosden, C. and Philipps, R. (eds.) Sensible Objects: Colonialism, Museums and Material Culture. Oxford: Berg, pp. 87–118.Google Scholar
Sutton, D. E. (2010). Food and the senses. Annual Review of Anthropology, 39(1), 209–223.Google Scholar
Sutton, D. E. (2014 ). Secrets from the Greek Kitchen: Cooking, Skill, and Everyday Life on an Aegean Island. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Svensson, H. (2020). Establishing Shared Knowledge in Political Meetings: Repairing and Correcting in Public. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Svensson, M. S., Luff, P. & Heath, C. (2009). Embedding instruction in practice: contingency and collaboration during surgical training. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(6), 889–906.Google Scholar
Synnott, A. (1991). A sociology of smell. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie, 28, 437–459.Google Scholar
Szatrowski, P. E. (ed.). (2014). Language and Food: Verbal and Nonverbal Experiences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Teil, G. (1996). Dire le goût: expression experte et naïve à propos du goût des fromages. Revue Française de Marketing, 156, 65–77.Google Scholar
Teil, G. (1998). Devenir expert aromaticien: Y a-t-il une place pour le goût dans les goûts alimentaires? Sociologie du travail, 40(4), 503–522.Google Scholar
Teil, G. (2019). Learning to smell: on the shifting modalities of experience. The Senses and Society, 14(3), 330–345.Google Scholar
Teil, G. & Hennion, A. (2004). Discovering quality or performing taste? A sociology of the amateur. In Harvey, M., McMeekin, A. and Warde, A. (eds.) Qualities of Food: Alternative Theoretical and Empirical Approaches. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 19–37.Google Scholar
Tekin, B. & Reeves, S. (2017). Ways of spectating: unravelling spectator participation in kinect play. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1558–1570.Google Scholar
Thomas, N. (1991). Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational Theory: Space/Politics/Affect. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tracy, S. E. (2018). Delicious molecules: big food science, the chemosenses, and umami. The Senses and Society, 13(1), 89–107.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (1996). La conversation familière. Lyon: Presses universitaires de Lyon LʼHarmattan.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2001). Syrian service encounters: a case of shifting strategies within verbal exchange. Pragmatics: Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association, 11(4), 421–444.Google Scholar
Trubek, A. (2008). The Taste of Place: A Cultural Journey into Terroir. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Turner, S. (1994). The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge and Presuppositions. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Vannini, P. (2010). Mobile cultures: from the sociology of transportation to the study of mobilities. Sociology Compass, 4, 111–121.Google Scholar
Vannini, P., Waskul, D. & Gottschalk, S. (eds.). (2012). The Senses in Self, Society, and Culture: A Sociology of the Senses. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vatin, F. (ed.). (2009). Évaluer et valoriser. Une sociologie économique de la mesure. Toulouse: Presses universitaires du Mirail.Google Scholar
Vázquez Carranza, A. (2017). If vegetables could talk … : a structural and sequential analysis of buying and selling interactions in a Mexican fruit and vegetable shop. Discourse Studies, 19(6), 711–731.Google Scholar
Ventola, E. (1987). The Structure of Social Interaction: A Systematic Approach to the Semiotics of Service Encounters. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Viberg, A. (1983). The verbs of perception: a typological study. Linguistics, 21, 123–162.Google Scholar
Vom Lehn, D. (2010). Discovering “experience-ables”: socially including visually impaired people in art museums. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(7–8), 749–769.Google Scholar
Vom Lehn, D., Webb, H., Heath, C. & Gibson, W. (2013). Assessing distance vision as interactional achievement: a study of commensuration in action. Soziale Welt, 64(1–2), 115–136.Google Scholar
Waskul, D. D. & Vannini, P. (2008). Smell, odor, and somatic work: sense-making and sensory management. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 53–71.Google Scholar
Weatherall, A. & Robles, J. (eds.). (2021). How Emotions Are Made in Talk. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Weismantel, M. (1989). Food, Gender and Poverty in the Ecuadorian Andes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Weiss, B. (1996). The Making and Unmaking of the Haya Lived World: Consumption, Commoditization, and Everyday Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
West, H. G. (2016). Artisanal foods and the cultural economy: perspectives on craft, heritage, authenticity and reconnection. In Klein, J. A. and Watson, J. L. (eds.) The Handbook of Food and Anthropology. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 406–434.Google Scholar
West, H. G. (2020). Crafting innovation: continuity and change in the “living traditions” of contemporary artisan cheesemakers. Food and Foodways, 28(2), 91–116.Google Scholar
West, H. G. & Domingos, N. (2012). Gourmandizing poverty food: the Serpa cheese slow food presidium. Journal of Agrarian Change, 12(1), 120–143.Google Scholar
West, H. G. & Domingos, N. (2016). A gourmetização da comida da pobreza: o presidium slow food do queijo Serpa. In Ágoas, F. and Neves, J. (eds.) O Espectro da Pobreza: História, Cultura e Política em Portugal no Século XX. Lisboa: Mundos Sociais, pp. 173–205.Google Scholar
Whalen, J. & Zimmermann, D. (1998). Observations on the display and management of emotion in naturally occurring activites: the case of “Hysteria” in calls to 9-1-1, Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 141–159.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2001). Construction and action in food evaluation: conversational data. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 20(4), 445–463.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2002). Talking with your mouth full: gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35(3), 311–336.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2004). Talking about taste: using a discursive psychological approach to examine challenges to food evaluations. Appetite, 43(1), 29–38.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2013). The social life of “eugh”: disgust as assessment in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(3), 489–509.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2014). Adult and child use of love, like, don’t like and hate during family mealtimes: subjective category assessments as food preference talk. Appetite, 80(1): 7–15.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. (2019). Moments of pleasure: a preliminary classification of gustatory mmms and the enactment of enjoyment during infant mealtimes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1404.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. & Hepburn, A. (2007). Food abuse: mealtimes, helplines and troubled eating. In Hepburn, A. and Wiggins, S. (eds.) Discursive Research in Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 263–280.Google Scholar
Wiggins, S. & Potter, J. (2003). Attitudes and evaluative practices: category vs. item and subjective vs. objective constructions in everyday food assessments. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(4), 513–531.Google Scholar
Wilk, R. (2006). Home Cooking in the Global Village: Caribbean Food from Buccaneers to Ecotourists. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Winter, B. (2019). Sensory Linguistics: Language, Perception and Metaphor. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wnuk, E. & Majid, A. (2012). Olfaction in a hunter-gatherer society: Insights from language and culture. In Miyake, N., Peebles, D. and Cooper, R. P. (eds.) Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2012). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1155–1160.Google Scholar
Wnuk, E. & Majid, A. (2014). Revisiting the limits of language: the odor lexicon of Maniq. Cognition, 131, 125–138.Google Scholar
Yoshida, M. (1968). Dimensions of tactile impressions. Japanese Psychological Research, 10, 123–137.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. & Pollner, M. (1970). The everyday world as a phenomenon. In Jack, D. (ed.) Understanding Everyday Life. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 80–103.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. & Ogiermann, E. (2013). Responsibility and action: object requests in English and Polish everyday interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(3), 256–276.Google Scholar
Zucco, G. M., Carassai, A., Baroni, M. R. & Stevenson, R. J. (2011). Labeling, identification, and recognition of wine-relevant odorants in expert sommeliers, intermediates, and untrained wine drinkers. Perception, 40, 598–607.Google Scholar