Achieving A Synchrony Through Choral Chanting Co Operati - 2022 - Journal of P

Journal of Pragmatics 195 (2022) 48e68
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
Achieving (a)synchrony through choral chanting:

Co-operative corrections in taiko ensemble rehearsals
Junichi Yagi
noa, Moore Hall 570, 1890 East-West Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
University of Hawai'i at Ma
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This article introduces two types of choral chanting observed in correction sequences in a
Received 20 August 2021 performance-based setting. Drawing excerpts from video-recorded taiko ensemble re-
Received in revised form 29 April 2022 hearsals, I use multimodal conversation analysis to examine how members use in
Accepted 2 May 2022 ga, a semi-conventionalized repertoire of taiko-specific ideophones. I
correction kuchi-sho
Available online 18 May 2022
first show a typical, collaborative case and then examine a “competitive” case, where
members challenge, quasi-synchronously, each other's version of kuchi-sho ga. The analysis
Keywords:
explicates (a) how kuchi-shoga is laminated with the pointing gesture in the form of choral
Error-correction
Choral chanting
chanting, (b) how this configuration is contingently (re)structured upon a distinctive
Ideophones temporal organization characterized by the rhythmic constraints of the taiko music, and
Synchrony finally, (c) how these temporal constraints afford the use of choral chanting as an
Temporality embodied allocation device, locally tailored to particular interactional needs. Based on
Co-operative action Goodwin's co-operative action, I argue that kuchi-sho ga is members’ resource, accumu-
lated and sedimented through repeated transformative operations on materials inherited
from (absent) predecessors. These findings contribute to literature on instructional ac-
tivities, and that on rhythm and temporalities in embodied interaction, reinforcing the
significance of a culturally-sensitive analysis of co-operative action in performance-based
settings.
© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Instructiondorderly ways in which ordinary people teach and learn things, both mundane and professionaldis a
fundamental aspect of our social life (Garfinkel, 2002), and has remained a key topic within interactional research (Zemel and
Koschmann, 2014). It is a “task faced by every community” to create “both the objects and the tools that populate its envi-
ronment” and “the skilled actors capable of not only recognizing these objects, but knowing in fine detail how to use them to
constitute the activities that sustain the community” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 307). In settings in which embodied skills are at
issue, such as music and sports, instructions, overwhelmingly, are shown to be multimodal accomplishments (Ehmer and
Bro^ne, 2021; Råman, 2019; Reed and Szczepek Reed, 2013). Adopting multimodal conversation analysis (Mondada, 2019;
Streeck et al., 2011), the current article focuses on error-correction (Weeks, 1996a), a practice constitutive of the overall in-
struction (Lindwall et al., 2015), observed in a particular performance-based setting: taiko ensemble rehearsals.1
E-mail address: yagij@hawaii.edu.

1
Following Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionary, I use the terms performance and performance-based to refer to a “public exhibition of music, a play,
or some other form of entertainment,” which includes various physical activities, e.g., sports.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.05.001
0378-2166/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
J. Yagi Journal of Pragmatics 195 (2022) 48e68
Error-correctionda phenomenon prevalent in any kind of performance rehearsalsdis a joint achievement, in which
participants address “observable-and-reportable” (Garfinkel, 1967, p. 1) failure on the part of the instruction recipient in
producing the instructed action as instructed (Amerine and Bilmes, 1988), and the lack of competence exhibited therein. As a
key component of instructional activities, correction provides a “mechanism for calibrating knowledge of the environment,
other actors, and actions, in precisely the ways required to accomplish the activities of a specific community” (Goodwin, 2018,
p. 319). Similarly, error-identification is an interactional accomplishment (Evans and Reynolds, 2016). It is closely tied to
members’din this case, the expert'sdin-situ work of seeing (Nishizaka, 2000) the novice's embodied action, and that of
locating whatever they did “wrong,” right there and then (Evans and Fitzgerald, 2017b). In other words, the identification of
correctables, in itself, is evidence of the expert's professional vision (Goodwin, 1994).2
In the solution-proposing phase, the correcting talk needs to be recipient-designed (Sacks et al., 1974), i.e., locally tailored
to the mastery level and knowledge of the recipient(s), especially, when teaching novices. The incorrectness of any given error
has to be presented “in such a way that it can be learned” (Sharrock and Anderson, 1982, p. 171). One method of addressing
these correctables is bodily quoting (Keevallik, 2010), where an expert re-enacts a novice's “incorrect” performance for
pedagogical purposes. These demonstrations are systematically ordered with syntax, constituting a multimodal turn-
constructional unit (TCU), or a syntactic-bodily unit (Keevallik, 2013b).3 In performance-based settings, embodied demon-
strations are often combined with nonlexical vocalizations (Keevallik, 2021; Keevallik and Ogden, 2020; Tolins, 2013). This
article examines how a particular type of vocalizationsdto be precise, ideophones (Dingemanse, 2019)dare employed in
correction.
In each taiko tradition, performers share a semi-conventionalized repertoire of ideophones specifically tied to the taiko
music and its culture. In ethnomusicology, the repertoire is widely known as kuchi-sho ga (Bender, 2012). The term kuchi-
ga can also refer to a larger chanting practice that employs this onomatopoetic repertoire.4 The analysis aims to explicate
sho
(a) how kuchi-sho ga is laminated with the pointing gesture in the form of choral chanting, (b) how this configuration is
contingently (re)structured upon a distinctive temporal organization characterized by the rhythmic constraints of the taiko
music, and finally, (c) how these temporal constraints afford the use of choral chanting as an embodied allocation device.5
Based on Goodwin's (2018) co-operative action, I argue that kuchi-sho ga is members’ resource, accumulated and sedi-
mented in interactive fields through repeated transformative operations on materials made publicly available by predecessors
(Goodwin, 2018, pp. 245e262).
The article is organized as follows. Below I discuss participants’ choral work in relation to turn-sharing (Lerner, 2002;
Pf€
ander and Couper-Kuhlen, 2019). I then overview some of the recent ethnomethodological (EM) and conversation-analytic
(CA) studies on vocalizations and ideophones, along with ethnomusicological literature on kuchi-sho ga. Next, I explicate co-
operative action and its historical consequences on the transformation of human action. After describing data and methods, I
first show a typical, collaborative case, in which participants chorally produce the kuchi-sho ga of a specific segment of a piece,
and then examine a “competitive” case, where members challenge, by filling in the slots with chanting and pointing, each
other's version of kuchi-sho ga. The analysis is followed by discussion and conclusion.
2. Background
2.1. Taiko drumming in Japan and North America
Taiko, or kumi-daiko (“group taiko”), is a “decidedly contemporary form of ensemble drumming that is built on the bones
of Japanese festival drumming” (Wong, 2019, p. 4). In kumi-daiko, “barrel-shaped wooden drums (taiko) of various sizes and
shapes” are arranged “for stage performance, much like an orchestral percussion section” (Bender, 2012, p. 2). These in-
struments include o -daiko (“tall, large drum”), chu
-daiko (“middle-sized drum”), and shime-daiko (“high-pitched, small
drum”), each of which has a distinctive role within the taiko music.
In Japan, the “taiko boom” (Bender, 2012) emerged as a part of “nationalist folklore movements” (Wong, 2019, p. 5) in the
1950s and 1960s, in which “young Japanese from the postwar generation reworked it into a folkloricized tradition” (p. 8). In
the late 1960s, the taiko drumming was imported by Seiichi Tanaka to North Americadprimarily, California and the sur-
rounding West Coast areadand has flourished as an “important stage for Asian American identity work” (Wong, 2019, p. 9).
Today, taiko has “arguably become Japan's most globally successful performing art” (Bender, 2012, p. 4). In Wong's (2019)
2
Corrections do not always orient to a correctable as correctable for the sake of its “objective” incorrectness (Schegloff et al., 1977). In taiko rehearsals,
participants often correct specific parts of their performance in order to “make it better.” This is evident in other music-related instructional settings, such
as masterclasses (Haviland, 2007; Reed and Szczepek Reed, 2013; Szczepek Reed et al., 2013).
3
Similarly, Råman and Haddington (2018) used the term phase-clarifying actions (PCAs) to describe how the online production of accompanying syntax
can provide a “managerial tool” for the budo teacher to “highlight core details of a phase in an instructed action” (p. 6). See also Keevallik (2013a) for
teachers’ decomposition of dance movements.
4
The notion of kuchi-sho ga is detailed subsequently (2.2. “Vocalizations, ideophones, and kuchi-sho ga”).
5
While bearing some similarities, the term allocation must be distinguished from the one used in Ka €€
ant€
a (2012), who discussed the phenomenon with
regard to turn allocation. In this article, allocation is used (unless noted otherwise) to refer to the embodied action of pointing to a specific performer and
their drum, an instruction of what to play and when to play it etc.
49
words, “[i]n some ways taiko is very old, but in most of the ways that matter, it is a transnational, globalized, dynamic
tradition that changes by the day” (p. 5). My data come from one of the prestigious taiko ensembles in Hawaii that keeps
enriching such a “new” tradition across the Pacific.
2.2. Choral chanting: (Quasi-)simultaneity and synchronization
The choral phenomenon examined here is not to be seen as organized by “turns” in a conversation-analytic sense (Lerner
and Raymond, 2021). The choral work in the taiko rehearsals, as will be detailed in the analysis, is structured by an order
entirely different from that of talk-in-interaction (Haviland, 2011; cf. Sacks et al., 1974). That said, I propose that there are still
some merits in drawing on past CA works on choral co-productions (Lerner, 2002). After all, these studies have greatly
enhanced our understanding of the “systematically describable sequential environments” (Lerner, 2002, p. 225), in which
participants demonstrably treat co-produced, overlapping talk as “properly simultaneous” (p. 225). Lerner (2002) distin-
guished two types of turn-sharing, opportunistic and elicited co-production, and showed that in both cases multimodal
preparatory phases are needed. The latter point was elaborated by Pfa €nder and Couper-Kuhlen (2019). The apparent “choral”
co-productions, upon closer inspection, turned out to have three preparatory phases, revealing its “microsequential”
(Deppermann and Streeck, 2018, p. 17), or “quasi-simultaneous” (Stukenbrock, 2018, p. 33), organization.
Pfa€nder and Couper-Kuhlen (2019) elaborated turn-sharing as follows. Choral performance is a “bilateral accomplishment,”
which is enabled by “the concerted efforts of the [participants] to produce talk in unison,” and is characterized as “primarily
performative” (Pfa €nder and Couper-Kuhlen, 2019, p. 25).6 Choral performance is projected by the following preparatory
phases: (1) “alert,” (2) “hold,” and (3) “fine tune” (p. 45). On the other hand, chiming in is a “unilateral accomplishment,”
primarily brought off by the second speaker, who “closely monitors ongoing talk” (p. 35) to join in “at a reduced volume, on a
final word/expression or part thereof once mutual gaze is established” (p. 36). Accordingly, it is preceded by the following
phases: (1) “monitoring,” (2) “coming closer,” and (3) “still monitoring” (p. 45). Typically, there are no verbal or embodied
acknowledgements of the co-production; the current speaker simply continues. These findings bear a striking similarity to
Ehmer (2021), who illustrated the following types of bodily synchronizations based on his Argentine tango data. Emergent
synchronization is similar to chiming in (Pfa €nder and Couper-Kuhlen, 2019); a student gradually “chimes into” a teacher's
demonstration (Ehmer, 2021, p. 16). Its accomplishment is mostly unilateral, requiring “one-sided monitoring and adaptation”
from the student (p. 16). In orchestrated synchronization, the teacher explicitly pursues the student's synchronization,
requiring “mutual monitoring” and “reciprocal adaptation” (Ehmer, 2021, p. 16).
As will be detailed, choral co-productions found in my taiko data are located somewhere “in the middle.” The first example
(4.1. “Choral chanting: A typical case”) shows features of both types in an intertwined manner. A correction sequence is (rather
one-sidedly) initiated, and then orchestrated, by a senior member, with the co-participants gradually chiming in, but in
(nearly) perfect sync. Such emergent synchronization is afforded by the strong projectability of singing (Keevallik, 2020a,
2020b; Stevanovic and Frick, 2014). The second example (4.2. “A competitive case”) is arguably more “competitive.” The
ensemble members correct each other's kuchi-sho ga through what I call de-synchronized choral chanting, whereby two
different versions are co-produced quasi-simultaneously, but in a way that structurally invalidates the legitimacy of the other.
As Lerner (2002) argued, the use of co-productions can provide a “method for arranging the conjoined production of an
action” and thus “furnishes one solution to competing formulations of that action” (p. 240, italics added). My data show how
these competing formulations, or versions, can be negotiated through de-synchronized choral chanting.
As mentioned earlier, the choral work in the taiko ensemble rehearsals heavily relies on a set of ideophones specifically
tied to the taiko culture. The next section overviews vocalizations and ideophones from an interactional standpoint, in
relation to relevant ethnomusicological literature on kuchi-sho ga.
ga
2.3. Vocalizations, ideophones, and kuchi-sho
In traditional linguistics, vocalizations have been systematically marginalized, enduring some undeserved labels, such as
“exotic,” “exceptional,” “childish,” “playthings” etc. (Dingemanse, 2018). Recently, there has been a notable increase in the
number of interactional studies on these nonlexical vocalizations. A special issue in Research on Language and Social
Interaction (Keevallik and Ogden, 2020) expanded the analytic scope to include not only vocalizations, but also other
nonlexical resources, or liminal signs (Dingemanse, 2020), in interaction, which might not fall onto any readily-classifiable
linguistic categories, such as clicks (Ogden, 2020) and sniffs (Hoey, 2020). Drawing empirical data from various settings,
studies in the issue demonstrated how these liminal signs can be used to achieve meaningful social actions.7 The observation
of vocalizations as an interactional resource has been supported by numerous CA studies on atypical interaction (e.g.,
6
In my taiko data, participants do not necessarily “take pleasure in their co-production” or display at its closure their “mutual appreciation of each other
and what they have produced together” (Pfa €nder and Couper-Kuhlen, 2019, p. 25, italics added), most likely, due to their professional commitment to music
production.
7
Arguably, the interest in vocalizations traces back to Goffman's (1978) response criesdand even further back (Sapir, 1921).
50
Goodwin et al., 2002; O'Reilly, 2005; Wilkinson et al., 2010), a clear illustration of how these vocalizations can serve as a useful
communicative tool for those with relatively limited linguistic proficiency, including second language users (e.g., Burch and
Kasper, 2016).
Past and recent EMCA literature has documented how vocalizations, such as “tada dada”dwhat Weeks (1996a) called
illustrative expressionsdplay a crucial role in instructions and corrections in performance-based settings, including dance
lessons (Keevallik, 2014, 2021) and masterclasses (Szczepek Reed et al., 2013). Keevallik (2021), for instance, examined her
Lindy Hop lesson data to illustrate how nonlexical vocalizations can be used for not only pedagogical, but also organizational
purposes. They can “mark the rhythm of the dancing bodies, making it audible beyond the sound of the steps on the floor”
(Keevallik, 2021, p. 2), and can, on the other hand, create the “pedagogical contrast between the two demonstrations for the
benefit of the students: one plain and dull, the other one lively and exciting” (Keevallik, 2021, p. 5; see also Keevallik, 2010).
Importantly, vocalizations in these typical music instructional settings seem to be produced “on the spot” (e.g., Sambre, 2021;
Stevanovic, 2021; Tolins, 2013), meaning that members do not refer to a conventionalized set of vocalizations.
Dingemanse (2019) defined ideophones as an “open lexical class of marked words that depict sensory imagery” (p. 16). A
crucial feature of ideophones is that they are “words, i.e., conventionalized lexical items that can be listed and defined”
(Dingemanse, 2019, p. 15, italics added). The degree of conventionality seems to vary, depending on the language. Japanese,
for example, is known for its rich inventory of mimetics (Iwasaki et al., 2017).8 Based on her analysis of naturally-occurring
Japanese conversations, Shibata (2017) categorized mimetics into the following three types: (a) “conventional,” (b) “creative,”
and (c) “invented” (pp. 7e8). The ideophones found in my taiko data are located at one extreme of the conventionality scale
due to their rich historical background.
In ethnomusicology, the set of taiko-specific ideophones (e.g., ten ten, don don) is called kuchi-sho ga, and their usage is
defined prescriptively (Endo, 1999, pp. 29e30). Kuchi-sho ga is a “phonetic system for uttering drum strokes” (Wong, 2019, p.
25), which employs a set of “onomatopoeic vocalizations that correspond to a particular kind of drumbeat, stroke, or pattern”
(Bender, 2012, p. 139), and it is used “for pedagogical purposes and as a performance prompt” (Wong, 2019, p. 25). Addi-
tionally, I have learned through my fieldwork (3. “Data and methods”) that the term can also refer to the overall chanting
practice in which these taiko-specific ideophones are used. In other words, (a) kuchi-sho ga as a repertoire of taiko-specific
ideophones is members’ pedagogical, mnemonic, and referential resource, whereas (b) kuchi-sho ga as practice encom-
passes the overall activity of choral chanting.
Though highly conventionalized, the local employment of kuchi-sho ga is not entirely pre-determined. Wong (2019)
described its semi-conventionality as follows:
“… a core set of widely accepted syllables is understood by most musicians, but new and idiomatic syllables are common,
tied to specific performing ensembles or pieces. Although some of its meaning is contextual, each syllable may indicate
several parameters at once: duration, volume, which kind of drum is being played, which part of the drum is being
struck.” (p. 25, italics added).
Therefore, the indexicality and conventionality of kuchi-sho ga afford various uses in interaction. As will be shown,
however, participants exhibit a strong orientation to its “correct” usage. In members’ locally occasioned reference to the set of
semi-conventionalized ideophones, kuchi-sho ga serves as a shared resource for the interactional accomplishment of cor-
rections, and more broadly, of taiko ensemble rehearsals.
2.4. Co-operative instructions and corrections
Drawing illustrations from the family dinner table to the archeological site, Goodwin (2018) proposed that human action is
inherently co-operative, which refers to the way “[n]ew action is built by decomposing, and reusing with transformation the
resources made available by the earlier actions of others” (p. 1).9 In performing social action, participants laminate multiple
semiotic resources, creating a specific configuration relevant to the local situation they inhabit (Goodwin, 2000). These
materials are decomposed and reused with modifications, but in a way that preserves the original structure of the material,
what Goodwin (2013) called a substrate. In explicating co-operative action, Goodwin (2018) repeatedly used an example of
African-American children's disputes on the street (“Why don't you get out my yard?” “Why don't you make me get out the
yard?”). Interestingly, Lerner (2002) made a similar comment about choral co-production: “… co-production can be a device
used for countering the loss of a speaking turn to another participant. Rather than compete openly, one can drop out and take
the other's line by co-producing itdand then use that as a basis for continuing one's own line” (p. 241, italics added). This
suggests a connection between co-operative action and choral co-production, which is detailed in a subsequent section (4.2.
“A competitive case”).
8
In linguistics, the term ideophones is used in studies on African and Native American languages, whereas mimetics is adopted in studies on Japanese and
Korean, and expressives in studies on Southeast Asian languages. For the “conventionality” issue addressed below, I follow Dingemanse (2019) in this article
and adopt ideophones as an umbrella term. These terms will be clarified wherever relevant.
9
The term co-operation is not to be confused with cooperation, which is mostly used to refer to the “altruistic” nature of action (Goodwin, 2018, pp. 5e7).
51
Instructional activities in performance-based settings, particularly, error-correction, can be a perspicuous locus for
probing into such transformative operation. In fact, instructing embodied skills has been shown to be a co-operative
action fundamental to our mundane lifeworld (Ehmer and Bro ^ ne, 2021; Lindwall and Ekstro €m, 2012). Take corrections
in a dance lesson (Keevallik, 2010). An expert takes up a specific movement produced by a novice (e.g., dance step)
and demonstrates it in a recognizably exaggerated manner. These multimodal demonstrations visually highlight
specific properties of the novice's movements for correcting purposes (Keevallik, 2014; see also Evans and Reynolds,
2016; Råman and Haddington, 2018). Note here that the exaggerated demonstrations rely on the immediately preced-
ing novice performance. That is, the expert exploits the correctability of the novice's action as a substrate to build its
correction as a new relevant action. Goodwin (2018) also argued that co-operative action “provides the resources for
accomplishing the task of creating the skilled, cognitively rich actors required by the setting, and does this within ongoing,
endogenous action itself” (pp. 313e314, italics added). In taiko ensemble rehearsals, novice performers are trained into
skilled actors not only by expert corrections, but also through actual performances in the lifeworld of taiko performers.
Music-as-process, e.g., instruction, is reflexively produced by the “machinery” (Sacks, 1992) quite similar to what enables
members’ methodic production of local order(s) of music (Weeks, 1990). With this view, we can begin to examine
correction as co-operative correction.
Importantly, co-operative action is “not restricted to states of copresence” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 245), but goes much
beyond. This is evident in that the notion is informed by biosemiotics (Favareau, 2010) and its key concepts such as Umwelt
(Uexküll, 1933).10 In explicating this idea, Goodwin (2018) used an example of mother and daughter preparing pancakes for
their family: “What they are focusing on together to accomplish their actiondthe spatula and the frying pandwere created
by others, indeed people mother and daughter have never met. However, the properties of these objects […] shape in fine
detail the organization of the co-operative actions now being pursued together” (p. 247, italics added). From this viewpoint,
kuchi-shogadwhich has been passed on over centuries from masters to their disciples (Endo, 1999)dprovides a culturally
rich resource for co-operative instructions and corrections. The semi-conventionalized repertoire of taiko-specific ideo-
phones has been accumulated through repeated transformative operations on semiotic resources inherited from “absent
predecessors” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 246), who have employed it to instruct, and correct, the embodied skills of the taiko
performers. In the same way, kuchi-sho ga can be drawn upon as a substrate by participants to the current scene at their
disposal.
3. Data and methods
Data were drawn from video corpora of interaction in performing and martial arts, originally collected for a larger project.
This article focuses on correction sequences in taiko ensemble rehearsals (12 h), which took place in Hawaii. Participants
consented to the use of video-recordings for research purposes. For anonymizing purposes, all names that appear in the
paper, including those of relevant institutions, were altered, and frame grabs were filtered by editing software. The recorded
talk was transcribed according to Jefferson (2004), and participants’ embodied actions were represented by Burch's (2016)
system, a simplified version of Mondada's (2018), in which embodied actions are placed above the concurrent talk for the
enhanced readability of three-tier translations (“Appendix”). Music performance is represented with an eighth note (♪).
Parenthesized numbers in the analysis indicate the corresponding line numbers in the excerpts. Praat was used for com-
plementary phonetic analysis, and pitch and intensity were selected among multiple variables. The target pitch range was set
to 20e700 Hz to capture both male and female voices, and the singing contour characteristic of kuchi-sho ga. When it was
difficult to determine which utterance was produced by which speaker, the pitch apex of a given segment was identified, and
the general intonation contour was described.
In order to meet the unique adequacy requirement (Garfinkel and Wieder, 1992), I conducted fieldwork in a performing
ensemble at the Taiko School of Hawai'i (“TSH”). TSH is led by one of the most prominent figures in the North-American taiko
scene, who I refer to as Sensei (“teacher,” “master” etc.). I first contacted Sensei in 2018, after being acquainted with one of the
ensemble fellows.11 I participated in their Sunday training sessions for about a year and half, first, as an observing researcher,
and later, among the other trainees, during which I had an opportunity to learn various playing styles, primarily, that of
Sukeroku-daiko (Bender, 2012; Endo, 1999). The performing ensemble consisted of approximately twenty members (including
Sensei, fellows, and trainees). The number of regular members of Sunday sessions varied from five to ten, sometimes more.
The participants (except for the researcher) were all first language speakers of English, with some being well-balanced En-
glish/Japanese bilingual speakers. Japanese was rarely used as a common language, though it frequently appeared in
formulaic expressions (e.g., Ohayo gozaimasu; “Good morning”; Arigato gozaimashita; “Thank you for the training”). The range
of performance levels, like their Japanese proficiency, varied from (lower-)intermediate to the “Sensei” level. Nonetheless,
10
See, especially, Chapter 16: “Co-Operative Action with Predecessors” (Goodwin, 2018).
11
A TSH fellow is a committed member and is eligible for the financial support by the school.
52
there was a normative expectation that the more experienced one is, the better they are expected to perform, to know about
pieces, and so on.
The typical training session of the ensemble was organized as follows: (a) pre-training (e.g., floor-cleaning, warm-up), (b)
briefing of the upcoming schedule, (c) aisatsu (“greeting”), (d) Edo-bayashi,12 occasionally, (e) Kotobuki-jishi (“celebratory lion
dance”),13 (f) kumi-daiko,14 and (g) post-training logistic announcements, followed by (h) post-training greeting. The analysis
below focuses on kumi-daiko, which roughly constituted half of the training session. Among “massive” occurrences (Schegloff,
1993, p. 99) of kuchi-shoga in my taiko corpus, two excerpts were selected, based on “informal quantification” (Schegloff,
1993, p. 118), as perspicuous cases of its corrective usage.15 This selection was made to illustrate two types of choral chan-
tingdone collaborative and synchronized, and the other “competitive” and de-synchronizeddand to uncover ways in which
members mobilize kuchi-sho ga in correction. A detailed explanation of each excerpt follows in the next section.
4. Analysis
4.1. Choral chanting: a typical case
ga is laminated with

Excerpt 1 shows a typical, collaborative case of correction through choral chanting, in which kuchi-sho
embodied and ecological resources, specifically, pointing to the co-participants and their drums (Goodwin, 2003). This
configuration is rapidly restructured within a rhythmic unfolding of embodied allocations (Ka €€
ant€
a, 2012), aligned with the
“common rhythm established” (Broth and Keevallik, 2014, p. 113) for the kuchi-sho ga. In other words, the correction activity
comes to be organized as a form of multimodal choral chanting (see Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Excerpt 1 layout.
Prior to Excerpt 1, the ensemble members had just finished performing a piece they were practicing for the upcoming
concert. However, the “finishing pose,” concurrent with the last beat of the piece, was noticeably out of sync, about which
they mutually exchanged negative assessments. This prompted John, a young, yet experienced fellow, to make a summative
12
A repertoire of traditional taiko pieces performed with an ensemble of shime-daiko (“high-pitched, small drums”) and a fue (“Japanese flute”). Shibata
(2019) defined Edo-bayashi as a “specific repertoire of music and performance practices that has been established and taught as part of the Wakayama Ryu ”
(p. 15).
13
According to Shibata (2019), “Kotobuki Jishi is a separate part of the Wakayama Ryu repertory from Edo Bayashi,” much of whose musical content is
“based on Edo Bayashi” (p. 71). For the purpose of this study, suffice it to say that it is a type of shishi-mai, one of the traditional Japanese performing arts, in
which performers mimic a lion's movements in a lion costume to festival music (https://www.japanese-wiki-corpus.org/culture/Shishimai%20(Japanese%
20Lion%20Dance).html).
14
Kumi-daiko literally means a “group of drums.” As Wong (2019) stated, “[m]ost North American participants in this tradition use the term taiko in
everyday conversation, though they are aware that the more proper term is kumi-daiko” (p. 9). For its detailed historical description, see Bender (2012, pp.
48e52, pp. 174e176).
15
Note that this is not what Schegloff (1993) called “formal quantitative analysis” (p. 118). This sort of informal quantification instead “reports an
experience or grasp of frequency, not a count; an account of an investigator's sense of frequency over the range of a research experience” (Schegloff, 1993, p.
119).
53
comment, “well good thing we practiced” (line not shown), which invited an acknowledgement with affiliative laughter. At
this point of possible sequence closure, Courtney, a senior member who has trained at the school for the longest time, initiates
a new sequence.
Excerpt 1-1: Launching a correction

020418_taiko_main_3
JO: John, CO: Courtney, CA: Carrie, JI: Jim, JU: Justin, SH: Shelly, TA: Takako,
PS: All performers (unless otherwise specified)
Courtney's self-selection of the turn (16), which is transitionally marked (Beach, 1993) in overlap with
John's continuing talk (17), projects a continuation on her part. At this moment, it does not yet specify the “action mode”
(Szczepek Reed et al., 2013, p. 43) of what may follow.16 Upon hearing this announcement, John immediately
stops playing the shime-daiko (“high-pitched, small drum”), abandons his continuing talk (17), and shifts his gaze up to
meet Courtney's (18). Notably, John's neatly-timed gaze shift, concurrent with the onset of Courtney's chanting, seems to
be afforded by the projectability of the transitional device (“okay, so, uhm”)dwhich is used here as a correction
projector (cf. Broth and Keevallik, 2014; Råman, 2018)drather than a direct response to the kuchi-sho ga.17 Alternatively, it
could be argued that John, though he may not yet be fully certain of the forthcoming (unfolding) component, has
recognized that some activity transition has taken placeda transition to an activity that requires his immediate attention.
Without relying on a verbal description, Courtney starts chanting segment(s) of the piece, te:n te:n ten, te:n do:n don (18),
pointing to the co-present members with her hands and bachi (“sticks”). Let us start with line 18 to note a few
observations.
First, by shifting from the verbal to the musical mode (Szczepek Reed et al., 2013), Courtney proposes an activity
transition from “performance” to “correction” (Råman, 2018), asserting her deontic authority (Stevanovic and Pera €kyla€,
2012). In addition to the above-mentioned correction-projection, the recognizability of the mode shift seems to be
achieved by multiple resources, including the higher pitch (approx. 700 Hz for the first segment) and the melodic,
“singing” contour (Keevallik, 2020a, 2020b) of Courtney's voice, through which the pitch steps down segment by segment
(Fig. 2).
16
By this, I mean that Courtney could have continued by describing what went “wrong” in the preceding performance, and it would still be a natural way
of filling the slot.
17 ga.
Upon repeated re-watching of the video footage, it appears that John's gaze shift is neatly synchronized with the onset of Courtney's kuchi-sho
54
ga (lines 18e19). Note. Red line: intensity; blue line: pitch. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is
Fig. 2. Kuchi-sho
referred to the Web version of this article).
Courtney's utterance, which follows a 0.4-s pause (16), is “slower, more accentuated, and louder than previous talk”
(Keevallik, 2020b, p. 152), creating a “distinct rhythmic quality” (p. 152). Through its intonational foregrounding, it is designed
to distinguish the chanting segment from its surroundings (Dingemanse and Akita, 2017). The chanting is thus made salient,
recognizably and designedly, as kuchi-sho ga and projects that relevant contributions to the activity proposed anew should be
made musically (Tolins, 2013). In doing so, Courtney secures the co-participants’ joint attention (Nishizaka, 2006), inviting
their embodied alignment within a musical space (Haviland, 2011).
Second, by chanting this particular segment of the piece, Courtney publicly locates the correctable, an extended ending
section of the piece, while launching its correction sequence (Evans and Fitzgerald, 2017a, 2017b). Upon hearing this, the
recipients, as competent taiko performers, are expected to recognize which specific passage is being chanted, and thus
corrected. The recipients swiftly respond to Courtney's multimodal turn by chiming in (Ehmer, 2021; Pfa €nder and Couper-
Kuhlen, 2019) at relevant positions (19e40), and the correction activity reflexively solidifies through a rhythmic unfolding
of choral chanting. I will revisit these responses shortly (Excerpt 1e2). In this way, the co-participants are invited to the choral
chanting as a correction project (Evans and Lindwall, 2020) that requires a shared orientation to the recited passage. In the
musical space into which they have been invited, the recipients have to demonstrate their understanding (Moerman and
Sacks, 1988) of what to play, and how to play it, through their own chanting and pointing, closely aligned with an “activ-
ity-specific rhythm” (Keevallik, 2020b, p. 149). This suggests that the choral chantingdneither entirely sequential nor
simultaneousdis organized around particular normative order (Haviland, 2011). In this view, the synchronization evident in
the choral chanting is an achieved synchrony (Weeks, 1996b; see also Garfinkel, 2002). As reported in the case of dance and
exercise lessons (Ehmer, 2021; Keevallik, 2020b), what may easily be overlooked as “simultaneous,” in fact, is structured in a
micro-sequential, quasi-simultaneous fashion (Stukenbrock, 2018).
Third, by pointing to a specific pair selected from the co-participants at each recognizable unit of the kuchi-shoga, Courtney
€a
gesturally allocates (Ka €nta€, 2012) that unit to the called-out pair, ensuring that each pair understand which segment they are
55
accountable for. Again, take line 18. With te:n te:n ten, which makes a recognizable segment in one measure (Fig. 3), Courtney
points to John and Takako (Frame 1). With the immediately following te:n do:n don, the next segment, she points to Jim and
Shelly (Frame 2). In a correction sequence in the taiko ensemble rehearsal, embodied allocations can thus be used to hold a
selected pair (re-)accountable for the multimodally-assigned unit of the target passage (cf. Ka€a€nt€
a, 2012).18
ga with syllables.

Fig. 3. Rhythmic patterns of kuchi-sho
ga has been documented as a semi-conventionalized repertoire of taiko-specific ideophones

As discussed earlier, kuchi-sho
that “correspond to a particular kind of drumbeat, stroke, or pattern” (Bender, 2012, p. 139). While the degree of conven-
tionality seems negotiable (Wong, 2019), any competent taiko performer is normatively expected (Nishizaka, 2008) to be able
to hear each of these ideophones as indexing a particular kind of drums. For example, the sound ten is used for shime-daiko
-daiko (“middle-sized drum”) or o
(“high-pitched, small drum”), whereas don refers to either chu -daiko (“tall, large drum”). In
this way, kuchi-shoga and the pointing gesture constitute a mutually elaborating gestalt (Mondada, 2014). The sound-based
projectability of kuchi-shoga maximizes the witnessability (Nevile, 2007) of what may be termed audio/visually-coupled
gesture (cf. Goodwin, 2007), enhancing its unit-assignment force. The pointing reflexively confirms the participants’ in-situ
hearing of each ten or don as indexing that particular type of drums.
Excerpt 1e2 shows how the recipients gradually chime in (Ehmer, 2021) to a correction of the whole ending section in
which the passage Courtney starts chanting (18) is embedded. Such emergent synchronization, and the participants’
rhythmic, incremental contributions achieved therein, give the activity-in-progress its shape as a collaborative choral
correction.
Excerpt 1-2: Chiming-in

020418_taiko_main_3
18
Again, the term allocation used here refers not to turn allocation, but to the embodied action of pointing to a specific performer and their drum to
instruct the precise timing of specific musical move(s).
56
57
58
However, the question remains as to what has enabled them to recognize how long the corrective chanting is about to go on. In
Bryant's demonstration, Garfinkel (2002) illustrated that one needs to “anticipate,” rather than “follow,” the metronome to
achieve perfectly synchronized clapping. If one can hear the metronome, it means that they are out of sync. Likewise, the taiko
ensemble members are not merely “following” Courtney's lead. As in Pilates lessons, the recognizable units of kuchi-sho ga “are
not in themselves repetitions but participate in the repetitive structures” (Keevallik, 2020b, p. 160), with each unit building on
another. The “conventionalized melodies” (Keevallik, 2020b, p.164) of kuchi-sho ga thus have a “projective capacity” (p. 160).
As Keevallik (2020b) reported, “the activity structure and the specific exercise can be anticipated to a certain degree” (p.
166), due to the “partial recognizability” and “partial projectability of next moves in [a given] activity context” (p. 170). (Yagi,
2021) analyzed a band studio session and showed how musicians, in checking the chord progression of the “pre-chorus” of a
song, exhibit their embodied sensitivity to the real-time unfolding of the music structure. When music playing from an iPod
reaches the trouble segment, a bassist re-orients his torso to an adjacent audio speaker, visibly announcing his focused
engagement with the activity of “listening.” Similarly, it is likely that the co-present performersdas “competent hearers”
(Hatch and Watson, 1974, p. 176) of the taiko musicdmay be able to “hear” a specific passage of a piece and (re)structure it
within a pre-established music structure (Endo, 1999) that has been historically sedimented (Goodwin, 2018). In any case, the
achieved hearability is beyond the analytic scope of this article and deserves scholarly attention in its own right.
After a brief gap of silence (41), whichdtogether with the ending phrase of the corrected passage (37e40)dprojects a
possible closure of the kuchi-shoga, Courtney verbally closes the sequence (42). At the same time, this turn proposes a return
to the original activity of “practice” (Broth and Keevallik, 2014). While this transition proposal asserts her deontic authority
(Stevanovic and Pera €kyla€, 2012), it is momentarily threatened, when Courtney self-corrects in the correction activity that she
has launched. Let us revisit line 29 as an interesting case of co-operative (self-)correction.
Excerpt 1-3: Self-correction

020418_taiko_main_3
As a senior member, Courtney is normatively expected (Nishizaka, 2008) to have a greater amount of knowledge about the
ga. Therefore, her self-correction becomes accountable, an orientation to which is
taiko repertoire and its “correct” kuchi-sho
evidenced by her immediate issuance of an apology (29). The correction is initiated by John's cut-off singing ( don- ) and John
and Takako's pointing (30). This is indeed a co-operative correction (Goodwin, 2018), achieved within a temporal
59
organization closely tied to the taiko music. A hasty insertion of the apology token is a local adjustment to the emergent
disruption (Lerner, 2002; Lerner and Raymond, 2021), which exhibits a strong orientation to restoring synchrony (Ehmer,
2021) on the part of the senior expert.19 The witnessability of the pointing, and the audibility of an alternative (“correct”)
ideophone, both embedded within the distinctive temporal organization of kuchi-sho ga, provide a cue for Courtney and the
co-participants to recognize that she may have sung that particular part incorrectly. In a split second, she uses that cue, “along
with what came before […] and the rest of the context and structure” (Lerner, 2002, p. 231) of the kuchi-sho ga, to correct
herself. In transforming a component of the multimodally-chanted unit into “something new” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 42), based
on the resources provided by the others, Courtney's self-correction is co-operative.20
To summarize, I showed how a correction sequence in the taiko ensemble rehearsal was structured as multimodal choral
chanting. The correction was built upon the temporal organization characterized by the rhythmic constraints deeply rooted in
the endogenous activity. These practical constraints enabled the members to exploit kuchi-sho ga, coupled with other
ecological resources, in and for correction. In Goodwin's (2018) words, the musical space created by the participants’ choral
chanting provided a framework for shaping “skilled members capable of performing the actions that define the work of their
community by properly using the sedimented resources [i.e., kuchi-shoga] that give action-relevant shape to its settings” (pp.
247e248, italics added).
4.2. A competitive case
As discussed earlier, Lerner (2002) reported a “competitive” case of choral co-production, stating that turn competition
“can itself be part of a course of action designed to reestablish a participant's position as explainer in order to forward his/her
own competing version” (p. 240, italics added). Acknowledging that the target practice is not turn-based (Haviland, 2011;
Lerner and Raymond, 2021), below I illustrate a case of “competitive” choral chanting, in which two fellows compete to fill in
the slots with their own chanting and pointing. Structurally, this case is quite different from the previous one (Excerpt 1), in
which multiple participantsdmostly, experienced fellowsdchimed in (Ehmer, 2021), following Courtney's lead, as it only
involves two participants (John & Justin) chanting. Building on the discussion of the expert co-operative (self-)correction
(Excerpt 1e3), here I examine a de-synchronized exchange of challenges to the validity of two competing versions of kuchi-
ga. This case serves as a reminder of the argumentative nature of C. Goodwin's (2018) “kids-on-the-street” and “hop-
sho
scotch” data (see also M. H. Goodwin, 2006), which he repeatedly used to explicate co-operative action.
Prior to Excerpt 2, a group of ensemble fellows had gathered to go over the ending section of another piece, in which three
or four chu -daiko (“middle-sized drum”) are arranged in a straight line, plus one o -daiko (“tall, large drum”) and one shime-
daiko (“high-pitched, small drum”).21 Its ending section is organized as if the three chu -daiko were exchanging a rapid-fire,
multi-party conversation (Fig. 4). Each stroke constitutes a beat in one measure, and the chu -daiko drummer has to take a
“pose” upon the stroke. The point is, the piece involves rapid transitions between the taiko and can therefore be challenging.
While Sensei and Courtney are arranging instruments, John assumes Sensei's role in orchestrating the correction. After
some confusion regarding where (i.e., which drum) to start the section has been resolved (which turns out to be Taiko C), John
starts chanting kuchi-sho ga, pointing to each of the drums on each beat. The pointed-to drum is indicated by an alphabetical
Fig. 4. Excerpt 2 layout.
19
In designing her self-correction in this way, i.e., quickly prefacing it with an apology, Courtney (and perhaps, the co-participants) seem to treat the
correctable as a “slip.”
20
In fact, the achievement of the correction seems even “communal,” in departing from error-corrections in orchestra rehearsals, where the conductor is
treated as having the “authoritative version” of musical texts (Weeks, 1985, p. 228). In this excerpt, the “authoritative version” appears to be treated by
participants as negotiable. This may well be ascribed to Sensei's absence in this particular session.
21
The glossary of the taiko-related terms, including the types of drums, is provided in “2.1. Taiko drumming in Japan and North America.” For detailed
explanation, see Bender (2012).
60
letter preceded by an eighth note (♪A, ♪B …). As in Excerpt 1, the fellows only chant the correctable passage; there is no
playing.
Excerpt 2-1: Collaborative chanting

03182018_taiko_main_3-1
CO: Courtney, JO: John, CA: Carrie, JI: Jim, JU: Justin
Grossly speaking, Excerpt 2 can be divided into “collaborative” and “competitive” chanting. There are some details that
cannot be thoroughly examined here, such as Justin's humorous remark on the earlier confusion regarding the starting
position (13e14). Aside from that, the first half (12e19) shows a structure almost identical to what we saw earlier. John
laminates kuchi-shoga and the pointing gesture, a configuration used in Excerpt 1, to ascribe each beat/stroke to a specific
performer and their drum (♪A, ♪B, ♪C). The recipients, except Carrie, whose “sock-removing” presents her as not entirely
engaged in the current activity, display a joint orientation (Nishizaka, 2006) to the unfolding of the embodied allocations
through choral chanting. Justin's chiming-in demonstrates both structural alignment and active engagement in the activity-
in-progress (17e19).
Note, also, how the last measure of the “rapid-fire” section (doko doko don) is chanted in perfect sync, in a decisive, falling
intonation (18e19). According to Keevallik (2020b), synchronization is “both a local and an activity-based achievement” (p.
61
166). Despite the projectability of the activity and music structure, “the exact number of repetitions has still to be established
at each instantiation of the practice” (Keevallik, 2020b, p. 166). Nonetheless, it is normatively expected that the recipients, as
competent taiko hearers/performers (Hatch and Watson, 1974), can project that the chanting has come to a possible
completion point, based on a specific passage that they have set out to perform (Yagi, 2021). That the two are able to sing the
“last” measure in perfect sync, then, suggests that they may well proceed to close the activity-in-progress.
However, what could accountably be a possible sequence closure is interrupted by John's repair initiation (“uh?”). He then
self-corrects the immediately-prior kuchi-sho ga (21), apparently, restarting the whole chanting from the second phrase
(“♪BAC, ♪BAC …”), and cuts his turn off (23).22 Upon hearing this self-correction, Justin displays a strong disagreement,
extending his right hand and bachi (“stick”) in the general direction of Taiko C and/or Carrie (Frame 2). He then follows it up
with the first few measures of an alternative version, this time, pointing to Taiko C more saliently (28).
Excerpt 2-2: Competition

03182018_taiko_main_3-1
CO: Courtney, JO: John, CA: Carrie, JI: Jim, JU: Justin
22
I am not entirely sure exactly what it is about the phrase that John is treating as correctable. There could be something more going on that is outside of
my membership knowledge, other than John restarting the kuchi-sho ga from the second phrase. At this point, I will just say that John's self-correction is
treated as laughable by Jim (22), and that he is treating that particular segment as correctable is evident, and recoverable, from the transcript.
62
Justin's disagreement tokens, iya iya iya, are repeated in a noticeably quick speech, which may at first glance seem dis-
affiliative (Stivers, 2008). Given John's expertise and performing skills, a younger fellow's disagreement in itself runs the risk
of being seen as face-threatening (e.g., “cheeky”).23 This sequential environment places Justin in a socio-pragmatically
“dangerous” position. To a culturally competent speaker of Japanese, however, it seems that the disagreeing turn is
designed to evoke a conversational practice closely tied to Japanese comedian culture (Furukawa, 2014), which employs a
normative coupling of boke (“fool”) and tsukkomi (“straight man”). The boke-tsukkomi pair is characteristic of a Japanese
traditional form of double acts, manzai, in which one says some recognizably “extreme” nonsense, enacting the role of boke
(“fool”), and his/her partner “straightens it up,” e.g., Nande-yanen (“What the heck are you saying?”), often combined with the
conventionalized gesture of “hitting the fool.” I argue that Justin's iya iya iya, in its design, can be heard as tsukkomi to John's
less-than-confident self-correction (boke), a humor-oriented way of doing “disagreeing without being seen as impolite”
(Haugh, 2010). This hearing is partially warranted by the co-participants’ affiliative responses, e.g., Jim's laughter (25),
Courtney's smile (24e41), and John's smiley voice (26). The point is, what is oriented to by the participants as a humor-
oriented display of disagreement affords an interactional space for Justin to participate in “competition” of a sort (27e34).
In the midst of Justin's disagreement, John issues an exaggerated change-of-state token (Heritage, 1984), suggesting that he
has just noticed, or remembered, “something” (26). He then goes on to reiterate the version that he has abandoned earlier
(23), but in a much more confident tone, with a pitch much higher than his normal voice (246.48 Hz).
Justin quickly jumps in with an alternative version, “♪CBA, ♪CBA …” (28).24 Apparently adhering to the “one-party-talks-
at-a-time” principle (Sacks et al., 1974), both parties initially back off. After a 0.3-s pause, they resume, producing
“competitive” choral chanting (30e34). Starting line 30, Carrie, who has been disengaged from the current activity, joins the
23
Though there were other senior members, as far as I know, John was recognized as having the best drumming techniques in the ensemble (excluding
Sensei). Usage of such ethnographic knowledge is sequentially warranted by John's self-selection in orchestrating the correction sequence, and reflexively,
by the co-participants’ acceptance.
24
Note that this ordering is the same as the first phrase of the initial version (12e19), which both John and Justin, at the time, seemed to accept as
unproblematic. This suggests that it may be a correction of a correction. Justin may likely be treating John's self-correction itself as correctable; that there
was nothing to correct in the first place.
63
chanting, pointing in sync with her bachi (“stick”) to the same drums as the ones Justin points to, an embodied display of
alignment with his version. As two competing versions of kuchi-sho ga unfold (“♪CBA, ♪CBA …” vs “♪BAC, ♪BAC …”), both
parties maintain an orientation to its temporal organization, but they do so separately. Justin employs a “fast tempo until [he]
catches up with” (Lerner, 2002, p. 228, p. 228)dand even after he has caught up withdJohn's momentarily-suspended
chanting (30), whereas John carries on with the tempo with which he has already started off his version, without waiting
for Justin to catch up (31). In other words, the choral chanting is filled with two competing versions of kuchi-sho ga unfolding
in a de-synchronized fashion.
Such de-synchronization lands on rather ironic quasi-unison (33e34), with Carrie air-drumming the ending phrase (33),
exhibiting further understanding of how the ending section should go. On the other hand, John does not complete his own
version to the “end”da possible completion of the corrected segment (“rapid-fire” section) and instead “laughs it off.” While
Justin gesturally maintains an orientation to Taiko C (33e35), John gazes down to the shime-daiko (“high-pitched, small
drum”), accepting the alternative version in a smiley voice (35). He then grabs the taiko and starts sliding it aside, spatially
disengaging from the current activity (37). John's chuckling (37), and Courtney's remark to John (41)dwhich is inaudible, but
hearably produced in a smiley voicedboth display nonchalance on the part of the more seasoned members. As the younger
fellows resume their discussion about the organization of the ending section, the “chu -daiko ordering” issue is (re)constructed
as relatively insignificant, and John's epistemic and categorial authority has thus been restored.
5. Discussion
As discussed earlier, the concept of co-operative action extends beyond local usage. Goodwin (2018) made this point as
clear as possible throughout his last monograph. Aside from the “pancake” example, he analyzed how airport staff use the
flight schedule to organize their daily work. With this example, Goodwin (2018) explicated how material objects inherited
from predecessors absent from the current scene are contingently transformed into “something new” for mundane, practical
activities at a high-stake worksite.25 Furthermore, Goodwin repeatedly discussed the transformative nature of “human tools,”
such as a stone axe (e.g., Goodwin, 2018, pp. 136e140). This suggests, with the incorporation of neighboring disciplinesdmost
notably, biosemiotics (Favareau, 2010)dhis cross-disciplinary attempt to expand the concept of co-operative action. “Though
utterances and stone axes appear to be completely different kinds of phenomena,” Goodwin (2013) explained, they have
“patterns of formal organization in common” (p. 19), namely, the process of “decomposition and reuse with transformation
[…] on materials provided by another” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 6). He then argued that co-operative action is a manifestation of
“pervasive, general phenomena implicated in the organization of human activity” (Goodwin, 2013, p. 17, italics added).
As a semi-conventionalized repertoire of taiko-specific ideophones, members’ usage of kuchi-sho ga is subject to moral
judgements, and corrections, by experts. Corrections in the taiko ensemble rehearsals were co-operatively organized, in
which one party located precisely what had gone “wrong” in the preceding performance (Evans and Fitzgerald, 2017b) and
exploited the correctability of that correctable to structure a new action (Goodwin, 2018). In both cases analyzed above, the
same configuration [chanting þ pointing] was contingently (re)structured upon the distinctive temporal organization of the
taiko music. In each of the cases, however, the multimodal choral chanting was locally tailored to particular interactional
needs, and to the temporal constraints and affordances, embedded within a specific interactional context.
In Excerpt 1, the senior expert (Courtney) exploited a multimodally-configurated unit produced by the co-present others
as a cue for self-correction within the rhythmic unfolding of embodied allocations. The correction was achieved in an instant,
without significantly disrupting the synchrony of the ongoing chanting. In the first half of Excerpt 2, Justin closely monitored
John's multimodal choral chanting, and then chimed in, which enabled Justin to notice what went “wrong,” as he saw, and
heard, John's version of kuchi-sho ga unfold. His disagreement and correction hinged upon the quasi-simultaneous organi-
zation of choral chanting; that is, Justin's de-synchronized correction, embedded in the unfolding choral chanting, exploited
the correctability of John's “incorrect” pattern as a substrate (Goodwin, 2018). These observations lead us to Goodwin's (2018)
discussion on the “accumulation of diversity,” in which he stated that “each reuse of inherited materials occurs within a local
activity where it is transformed and adapted to current tasks” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 263, italics added). According to Goodwin
(2018), “materials created by predecessors” are “lodged within the organization of specific actions,” shaping “the distinctive
ways of seeing [and/or hearing] and acting upon the world required for the endogenous activities” (p. 264). In this view, kuchi-
ga is members’ resource that has emerged from the diverse paths of endogenous activitiesdwhich may well have recurred
sho
over time, and across space (Hutchins, 1995, pp. 168e169).
6. Conclusion
Building on past literature on choral co-production and synchronization, the current article investigated correction se-
quences in the taiko ensemble rehearsals and explicated two types of choral chanting: a typical, collaborative case and a
ga is laminated with the pointing gesture in the form of choral
competitive case. The key findings are as follows: (a) kuchi-sho
chanting, (b) this configuration is contingently (re)structured upon a distinctive temporal organization characterized by the
rhythmic constraints of the taiko music, and finally, (c) these temporal constraints afford the use of choral chanting as an
25
See Goodwin (2018, p. 250) for his use of the term “predecessor.”
64
embodied allocation device, locally tailored to particular interactional needs. Based on Goodwin's (2018) co-operative action,
I argued that kuchi-sho ga is members’ resource, accumulated and sedimented in interactive fields through transformative
operations on materials inherited from predecessorsdco-present or absent from the current scene.
Through each path it takes, kuchi-sho ga locally diversifies its interactional usage. Every time it is employed by members for
specific interactional purposesdcorrection or instructiondit transforms its shape, in a way that adapts to its surrounding
environment. These “[p]ath-dependent transformations lead to the ongoing proliferation of diversity, across centuries”
(Goodwin, 2018, p. 263, italics added). Even in situations in which predecessors are not co-present, that is, where “pre-
decessors lack the ability to police their successors’ use of what they created” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 263), e.g., kuchi-sho ga, as
long as there are co-participants to the current scene, such “policing” remains (omni-)relevant as their practical concern.
In this article, I aimed to illustrate a culturally-sensitive analysis of co-operative action in performance-based set-
tingsdthough much remains to be explored about multimodal corrections and instructional activities with specific temporal
constraints. One major discussion lacking in this article is about the extent to which the target choral work can be treated as
turn-based (Sacks et al., 1974), as in other forms of social interaction. Lerner and Raymond (2021) inspected types of body
trouble that occur in manual actions. Their findings clearly showed that embodied actions do not follow the same order as that
of talk. In none of her works on Lindy Hop and Pilates (e.g., Keevallik, 2015; 2020a; 2020b)das far as my knowledge goesdhas
Keevallik explicitly stated that performance is organized by “turns” in a conversational-analytic sense. The same can be said
about sport settings such as basketball practice. Once the ball hits the court, members’ embodied conduct comes to be
structured by an order entirely different from that of conversation (Evans and Lindwall, 2020). Future studies are thus invited
to investigate the question: “To what extent is it comparable to verbal turn-taking?” Furthermore, the detailed examination of
instructional activities with rhythmic constraints may illuminate other undocumented aspects of temporalities (Deppermann
and Streeck, 2018). As empirical studies on co-operative action in performance-based settingsdwhich include, but are not
limited to, music and sportsdaccumulate, we will be closer, one step at a time, to the “integrated vision of human capacities
in their full linguistic, social, material, biological, cognitive, and historical intertwining” (Goodwin, 2018, p. 478).
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
None.
Acknowledgements
I would first like to express my sincere gratitude to Sensei and all the members, fellows and trainees, of the Taiko School of
Hawai‘i for allowing me to conduct this project. This study would not have been possible, had they not welcomed me as part
of their ‘ohana. I would also like to thank Gabriele Kasper, Jack Bilmes, and many other colleagues, for providing their
insightful comments. Lastly, I would like to thank Arnulf Deppermann for his patience and guidance, as well as the two
anonymous reviewers for their critical suggestions on my manuscripts. Any errors that remain are mine.
Appendix
Transcription conventions for talk (Jefferson, 2004)

(2.3) length of pause (measured in seconds and tenths of seconds)
(.) micro pause (i.e., brief unmeasured time gap)
¼ latching (i.e., no gap between the completion of one utterance and the beginning of another)
[ beginning of overlapped speech
] end of overlapped speech
(word) inaudible utterance
(( )) commentary by transcriber
wor- cut-off
wor:d elongated syllable
? rising (question) intonation
¿ half-rising intonation
. falling intonation
, continuing intonation
[ marked rise of immediately following element
Y marked fall of immediately following element
h outbreath
.h inbreath
wo(h)d laughter within a word
word emphasis
65
>word< quicker than surrounding talk

<word> slower than surrounding talk
£word£ laughing voice
word softer than surrounding talk
WORD louder than surrounding talk
Transcription conventions for embodiment (Burch, 2016), adapted from Mondada (2018)
Hands/Arms
R right
L left
B both
H hand (e.g., BH: both hands)
A arm
Movements
GZ gaze
pts points
fwd forward
> “to”: direction of gaze shift or movement
þ onset of action (gaze or movement)
^
e
offset of action; i.e., action stops
continued movement or hold of gesture, posture etc.
>> line xx action continues until a specified line number
♪ music performance
References
Amerine, R., Bilmes, J., 1988. Following instructions. Hum. Stud. 11 (2e3), 327e339. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177308.
Beach, W.A., 1993. Transitional regularities for ‘casual’ “okay” usages. J. Pragmat. 19 (4), 325e352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4.
Bender, S.M., 2012. Taiko Boom: Japanese Drumming in Place and Motion. University of California Press.
Broth, M., Keevallik, L., 2014. Getting ready to move as a couple: accomplishing mobile formations in a dance class. Space Cult. 17 (2), 107e121. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1206331213508483.
Burch, A.R., 2016. Motivation in Interaction: A Conversation-Analytic Perspective [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Hawai‘i at Ma noa.
Burch, A.R., Kasper, G., 2016. Like Godzilla: enactments and formulations in telling a disaster story in Japanese. In: Prior, M.T., Kasper, G. (Eds.), Emotion in
Multilingual Interaction. John Benjamins, pp. 57e85.
Deppermann, A., Streeck, J. (Eds.), 2018. Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. John Benjamins.
Dingemanse, M., 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa 3 (1), 1e30. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.444.
Dingemanse, M., 2019. “Ideophone” as a comparative concept. In: Akita, K., Pardeshi, P. (Eds.), Ideophones, Mimetics, Expressives. John Benjamins, pp.
13e33.
Dingemanse, M., 2020. Between sound and speech: liminal signs in interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53 (1), 188e196. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.
2020.1712967.
Dingemanse, M., Akita, K., 2017. An inverse relation between expressiveness and grammatical integration: on the morphosyntactic typology of ideophones,
with special reference to Japanese. J. Linguist. 53 (3), 501e532. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222671600030X.
Ehmer, O., 2021. Synchronization in demonstrations: multimodal practices for instructing body knowledge. Linguist. Vanguard 7 (4), 20200038. https://doi.
org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0038.
Ehmer, O., Bro ^ne, G., 2021. Instructing embodied knowledge: multimodal approaches to interactive practices for knowledge constitution. Linguist. Vanguard
7 (4), 20210012. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2021-0012.
Endo, K., 1999. Yodan Uchi: A Contemporary Composition for Taiko [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Hawai‘i at Ma noa.
Evans, B., Fitzgerald, R., 2017a. The categorial and sequential work of ‘embodied mapping’ in basketball coaching. J. Pragmat. 118, 81e98. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.pragma.2017.05.004.
Evans, B., Fitzgerald, R., 2017b. ‘You gotta see both at the same time’: visually analyzing player performances in basketball coaching. Hum. Stud. 40 (1),
121e144. https://doi-org.eres.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/10.1007/s10746-016-9415-3.
Evans, B., Lindwall, O., 2020. Show them or involve them?: two organizations of embodied instruction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53 (2), 223e246. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1741290.
Evans, B., Reynolds, E., 2016. The organization of corrective demonstrations using embodied action in sports coaching feedback. Symbolic Interact. 39 (4),
525e556. https://www.jstor.org/stable/symbinte.39.4.525.
Favareau, D. (Ed.), 2010. Essential Readings in Biosemiotics: Anthology and Commentary. Springer.
Furukawa, G., 2014. The Use of English as a Local Language Resource for Identity Construction in Japanese Television Variety Shows [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. University of Hawai‘i at Ma noa.
Garfinkel, H., 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall.
Garfinkel, H., 2002. In: Rawls, A.W. (Ed.), Ethnomethodology's Program: Working Out Durkeim's Aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Garfinkel, H., Wieder, D.L., 1992. Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate technologies of social analysis. In: Watson, G., Seiler, R.M. (Eds.), Text in
Context: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Sage, pp. 175e206.
Goffman, E., 1978. Response cries. Language 54 (4), 787e815. https://doi.org/10.2307/413235.
Goodwin, C., 1994. Professional vision. Am. Anthropol. 96, 606e633. https://www.jstor.org/stable/682303.
Goodwin, C., 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. J. Pragmat. 32, 1489e1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X.
Goodwin, C., 2003. Pointing as situated practice. In: Kita, S. (Ed.), Pointing: where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.
217e241.
Goodwin, C., 2007. Environmentally coupled gestures. In: Duncan, S.D., Cassell, J., Levy, E.T. (Eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language. John
Benjamins, pp. 195e212.
66
Goodwin, C., 2013. The co-operative, transformative organization of human action and knowledge. J. Pragmat. 46 (1), 8e23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pragma.2012.09.003.
Goodwin, C., 2018. Co-operative Action. Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C., Goodwin, M.H., Olsher, D., 2002. Producing sense with nonsense syllables: turn and sequence in conversations with a man with severe
aphasia. In: Ford, C.E., Fox, B.A., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford University Press, pp. 56e80.
Goodwin, M.H., 2006. The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Blackwell.
Hatch, D.J., Watson, D.R., 1974. Hearing the blues: an essay in the sociology of music. Acta Sociol. 17 (2), 162e178. https://doi.org/10.1177/
000169937401700205.
Haugh, M., 2010. Jocular mockery, (dis)affiliation, and face. J. Pragmat. 42 (8), 2106e2119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.12.018.
Haviland, J.B., 2007. Master speakers, master gesturers: a string quarter master class. In: Duncan, S.D., Cassell, J., Levy, E.T. (Eds.), Gesture and the Dynamic
Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill. John Benjamins, pp. 147e172.
Haviland, J.B., 2011. Musical spaces. In: Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., LeBaron, C. (Eds.), Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World.
Cambridge University Press, pp. 289e304.
Heritage, J., 1984. A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (Eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis. Cambridge University Press, pp. 299e345.
Hoey, E.M., 2020. Waiting to inhale: on sniffing in conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53 (1), 118e139. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712962.
Hutchins, E., 1995. Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press.
Iwasaki, N., Sells, P., Akita, K. (Eds.), 2017. The Grammar of Japanese Mimetics: Perspectives from Structure, Acquisition, and Translation. Routledge.
Jefferson, G., 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: Lerner, G.H. (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. John
Benjamins, pp. 13e31.
K€a€
anta€, L., 2012. Teachers' embodied allocations in instructional interaction. Classr. Discourse 3 (2), 166e186. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2012.
716624.
Keevallik, L., 2010. Bodily quoting in dance correction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 43 (4), 401e426. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.518065.
Keevallik, L., 2013a. Here in time and space: decomposing movement in dance instruction. In: Haddington, P., Mondada, L., Nevile, M. (Eds.), Interaction and
Mobility: Language and the Body in Motion. De Gruyter, pp. 345e370.
Keevallik, L., 2013b. The interdependence of bodily demonstrations and clausal syntax. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46 (1), 1e21. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08351813.2013.753710.
Keevallik, L., 2014. Turn organization and bodily-vocal demonstrations. J. Pragmat. 65, 103e120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.008.
Keevallik, L., 2015. Coordinating the temporalities of talk and dance. In: Deppermann, A., Günthner, S. (Eds.), Temporality in Interaction. John Benjamins,
pp. 309e336.
Keevallik, L., 2020a. Grammatical coordination of embodied action: the Estonian ja ‘and’ as a temporal organizer of Pilates moves. In: Maschler, Y., Pekarek
Doehler, S., Lindstro€m, J., Keevallik, L. (Eds.), Emergent Syntax for Conversation: Clausal Patterns and the Organization of Action. John Benjamins, pp.
221e244.
Keevallik, L., 2020b. Linguistic structures emerging in the synchronization of a Pilates class. In: Taleghani-Nikazm, C., Betz, E., Golato, P. (Eds.), Mobilizing
Others: Grammar and Lexis within Larger Activities. John Benjamins, pp. 147e173.
Keevallik, L., 2021. Vocalizations in dance classes teach body knowledge. Linguist. Vanguard 7 (s4), 20200098. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0098.
Keevallik, L., Ogden, R., 2020. Sounds on the margins of language at the heart of interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53 (1), 1e18. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08351813.2020.1712961.
Lerner, G.H., 2002. Turn-sharing: the choral co-production of talk-in-interaction. In: Ford, C.E., Fox, B.A., Thompson, S.A. (Eds.), The Language of Turn and
Sequence. Oxford University Press, pp. 225e257.
Lerner, G.H., Raymond, G., 2021. Body trouble: some sources of difficulty in the progressive realization of manual action. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 54 (3),
277e298. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1936994.
Lindwall, O., Ekstro €m, A., 2012. Instruction-in-interaction: the teaching and learning of a manual skill. Hum. Stud. 35 (1), 27e49. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/41427894.
Lindwall, O., Lymer, G., Greiffenhagen, C., 2015. The sequential analysis of instruction. In: Markee, N. (Ed.), The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and
Interaction. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 142e157.
Moerman, M., Sacks, H., 1988. On “understanding” in the analysis of natural conversation. In: Moerman, M. (Ed.), Talking Culture: Ethnography and
Conversation Analysis. University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 180e186.
Mondada, L., 2014. The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. J. Pragmat. 65, 137e156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.04.
004.
Mondada, L., 2018. Multiple temporalities of language and body in interaction: challenges for transcribing multimodality. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 51 (1),
85e106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878.
Mondada, L., 2019. Contemporary issues in conversation analysis: embodiment and materiality, multimodality and multisensoriality in social interaction. J.
Pragmat. 145, 47e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.016.
Nevile, M., 2007. Seeing the point: attention and participation in the airline cockpit. In: Mondada, L. (Ed.), Conference Proceedings of Interacting Bodies
2007: Gestures and the Organisation of Social Interaction: Ethnomethodological and Conversational Perspectives. ICAR Ecole Normale Suierieure
Lettres et Sciences Humaines, pp. 1e12. http://gesture-lyon2005.ens-lyon.fr/IMG/pdf/NevileFINALb.pdf.
Nishizaka, A., 2000. Seeing what one sees: perception, emotion, and activity. Mind Cult. Activ. 7 (1/2), 105e123. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2000.
9677650.
Nishizaka, A., 2006. What to learn: the embodied structure of the environment. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 39 (2), 119e154. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327973rlsi3902_1.
Nishizaka, A., 2008. Bunsan Suru Karada: Esunomesodorojı Teki So go-Koi Bunseki No Tenkai [The Body Distributed: an Ethnomethodological Study of Social
Interaction]. Keiso Shobo .
Ogden, R., 2020. Audibly not saying something with clicks. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 53 (1), 66e89. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1712960.
O'Reilly, M., 2005. ‘Active noising’: the use of noises in talk, the case of onomatopoeia, abstract sounds, and the functions they serve in therapy. Text 25 (6),
745e762. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2005.25.6.745.
Pf€
ander, S., Couper-Kuhlen, E., 2019. Turn-sharing revisited: an exploration of simultaneous speech in interactions between couples. J. Pragmat. 147, 22e48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.010.
Råman, J., 2018. The organization of transitions between observing and teaching in the budo class. Forum Qual. Sozialforsch./Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 19 (1).
http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2657.
Råman, J., 2019. Budo demonstrations as shared accomplishments: the modalities of guiding in the joint teaching of physical skills. J. Pragmat. 150, 17e38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.014.
Råman, J., Haddington, P., 2018. Demonstrations in sports training: communicating a technique through parsing and the return-practice in the budo class.
Multimodal Commun. 7 (2), 20180001. https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2018-0001.
Reed, D., Szczepek Reed, B., 2013. Building an instructional project: actions as components of music masterclasses. In: Szczepek Reed, B., Raymond, G. (Eds.),
Units of Talk: Units of Action. John Benjamins, pp. 313e342.
Sacks, H., 1992. In: Jefferson, G. (Ed.), Lectures on Conversation, vol. I & II. Blackwell.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50 (4), 696e735. https://
doi.org/10.2307/412243.
67
Sambre, P., 2021. Taking the trumpet up there: enactment of embodied high pitch in a multimodal body schema. Linguist. Vanguard 7 (s4), 20200114.
https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0114.
Sapir, E., 1921. Language: an Introduction to the Study of Speech. Harcourt.
Schegloff, E.A., 1993. Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 26 (1), 99e128. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327973rlsi2601_5.
Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., Sacks, H., 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53 (2), 361e382.
https://doi.org/10.2307/413107.
Sharrock, W., Anderson, B., 1982. Talking and teaching: reflective comments on in-classroom activities. In: Payne, G.C.F., Cuff, E.C. (Eds.), Doing Teaching: the
Practical Management of Classrooms. Batsford, pp. 170e183.
Shibata, S., 2019. Wakayama ryu Edo bayashi in the United States: Intercultural History, Transmission, Authenticity, and Relationship with Contemporary
Taiko [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Hawai‘i at Ma noa.
Shibata, Y., 2017. Sound Symbolic Words in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Stevanovic, M., 2021. Monitoring and evaluating body knowledge: metaphors and metonymies of body position in children's music instrument instruction.
Linguist. Vanguard 7 (s4), 20200093. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0093.
Stevanovic, M., Frick, M., 2014. Singing in interaction. Soc. Semiotic. 24 (4), 495e513. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2014.929394.
Stevanovic, M., Pera €kyl€
a, A., 2012. Deontic authority in interaction: the right to announce, propose, and decide. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 45 (3), 297e321.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.699260.
Stivers, T., 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: when nodding is a token of affiliation. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 41 (1), 31e57. https://
doi.org/10.1080/08351810701691123.
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., LeBaron, C. (Eds.), 2011. Embodied Interaction: Language and Body in the Material World. Cambridge University Press.
Stukenbrock, A., 2018. Forward-looking: where do we go with multimodal projections? In: Deppermann, A., Streeck, J. (Eds.), Time in Embodied Interaction:
Synchronicity and Sequentiality of Multimodal Resources. John Benjamins, pp. 31e68.
Szczepek Reed, B., Reed, D., Haddon, E., 2013. NOW or NOT NOW: coordinating restarts in the pursuit of learnables in vocal master classes. Res. Lang. Soc.
Interact. 46 (1), 22e46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.753714.
Tolins, J., 2013. Assessment and direction through nonlexical vocalizations in music instruction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 46 (1), 47e64. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08351813.2013.753721.
Uexküll, J. von, 1957[1933]. A stroll through the world of animals and men: a picture book of invisible worlds. In: Schiller, C.H. (Ed.), Instinctive Behavior:
The Development of a Modern Concept. International Universities Press, pp. 5e80.
Weeks, P., 1985. Error-correction techniques and sequences in instructional settings: toward a comparative framework. Hum. Stud. 8 (3), 195e233. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/20008946.
Weeks, P., 1990. Musical time as a practical accomplishment: a change in tempo. Hum. Stud. 13 (4), 323e359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00193569.
Weeks, P., 1996a. A rehearsal of a Beethoven passage: an analysis of correction talk. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 29 (3), 247e290. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327973rlsi2903_3.
Weeks, P., 1996b. Synchrony lost, synchrony regained: the achievement of musical co-ordination. Hum. Stud. 19 (2), 199e228. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF00131494.
Wilkinson, R., Beeke, S., Maxim, J., 2010. Formulating actions and events with limited linguistic resources: enactment and iconicity in agrammatic aphasic
talk. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 43 (1), 57e84. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810903471506.
Wong, D.A., 2019. Louder and Faster: Pain, Joy, and the Body Politic in Asian American Taiko. University of California Press.
Yagi, J., 2021. Embodied micro-transitions: A single-case analysis of an amateur band studio session. Soc. Interact. Video-Based Stud. Human Soc. 4 (4), 1e28.
https://tidsskrift.dk/socialinteraction/article/view/128655.
Zemel, A., Koschmann, T., 2014. “Put your fingers right in here”: learnability and instructed experience. Discourse Stud. 16 (2), 163e183. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1461445613515359.
Junichi Yagi is currently a PhD candidate in Second Language Studies at the University of Hawai'i at Ma noa. Much of his current research focuses on
performative aspects of social interaction. Adopting multimodal conversation analysis (CA), his doctoral dissertation investigates instruction sequences in
physically-oriented, performance-based settings. His research interests include, but are not limited to, multimodal conversation analysis, ethnomethodology,
instruction/instructed action, error-correction, embodied demonstration, language education (ESL, EFL, Japanese as a Foreign Language).
68

Achieving A Synchrony Through Choral Chanting Co Operati - 2022 - Journal of P

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Achieving A Synchrony Through Choral Chanting Co Operati - 2022 - Journal of P

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Pragmatics 195 (2022) 48e68

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Achieving (a)synchrony through choral chanting:

E-mail address: yagij@hawaii.edu.

2.1. Taiko drumming in Japan and North America

2.2. Choral chanting: (Quasi-)simultaneity and synchronization

2.4. Co-operative instructions and corrections

3. Data and methods

4.1. Choral chanting: a typical case

ga is laminated with

Fig. 1. Excerpt 1 layout.

Excerpt 1-1: Launching a correction

ga with syllables.

ga has been documented as a semi-conventionalized repertoire of taiko-speciﬁc ideophones

Excerpt 1-2: Chiming-in

Excerpt 1-3: Self-correction

4.2. A competitive case

Fig. 4. Excerpt 2 layout.

Excerpt 2-1: Collaborative chanting

Excerpt 2-2: Competition

Declaration of competing interest

Transcription conventions for talk (Jefferson, 2004)

>word< quicker than surrounding talk

You might also like