Situated, embodied, distributed: interaction and cognition in the orchestra Katharine Louise Nancy Parton Submitted in total fulfilment for the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Languages and Linguistics Faculty of Arts The University of Melbourne Abstract The orchestral ensemble exists as a group of people who come together to prepare for public performance of music and has done so for several hundred years. In this thesis I examine the interactions which occur during this process in a current day professional orchestra. My focus is on analysing how members of the orchestra, the orchestral organisation and the conductor use their bodies, artefacts, time and space. My approach to examining these behaviours is informed by social interaction methodologies and theories of distributed cognition. Chapter 5 presents an ethnographic account of the construction of space and delineation of time for rehearsal. I examine how the City Symphony Orchestra (CSO) and their management use both space and time to prioritise and privilege the work of the orchestra. Chapter 6 focuses on conductor gestures and I use this analysis to argue that the gestures are complex with components occurring simultaneously as well as sequentially. I argue that conductor gesture creates its own context as it is deployed interactionally and is deeply embedded within social and cultural context. I use the theory of composite utterances to demonstrate that conductor gesture is more than a simple single sign per semantic unit. Chapter 7 considers how orchestral musicians organise their cognition within the physical and social environment of the rehearsal. I show that orchestral musicians distribute their cognition across their bodies, other interactants and culturally constructed artefacts. I further argue that understanding musician cognition in this way allows us to see that the very purpose of orchestral rehearsal is to transform the internal, individual cognition into the external and shared. Chapter 8 shifts the focus of analysis onto the talk-based interaction between conductor, concertmaster and other players within the rehearsal. I approach this talk using analysis which allows me to focus on the epistemic stance taking that occurs. I show that musicians are highly aware of sources of knowledge and knowing within the rehearsal process. I argue that musicians use their own bodies as sources of knowing and orient to them as important to the rehearsal interaction. Chapter 9 presents an ethnographic account of a CSO performance and considers the orchestra as a social situation. I argue that observability and monitoring occur across the social situation in both visual and aural modalities but that the access to others is asymmetrically constructed by the social roles of the orchestra. I focus on the first violin section using the leadership gestural actions as an example of this asymmetry. Chapter 10 discusses my analyses and proposes several novel contributions to existing research on how stance taking occurs in group interactions. This research is based on original fieldwork with an orchestra referred to by the pseudonym ‘City Symphony Orchestra’ (CSO) within this thesis. Declaration (i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy; (ii) due acknowledgement has been made in the text to all other material used; and (iii) the thesis is fewer than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps, bibliographies and appendices Katharine Parton Acknowledgements My first thanks must go to the administration and musicians of the City Symphony Orchestra (a pseudonym) without whose welcoming and open minds this research would not exist. This research was supported by the University of Melbourne who awarded me a Melbourne Research Scholarship, the Faculty of Arts through an Alma Hansen Scholarship to visit the University of Cambridge and other travel funding. Thanks must also go to the HCSNet for its vibrant funding, conference and workshop schemes which supported me in the early period of my candidature in growing the confidence needed to pursue research which spanned multiple disciplines. I am also grateful to the International Society for Gesture Studies for their generous award. During my candidature I was welcomed as a Visiting Student to the Faculty of Music, University of Cambridge giving me the opportunity to attend many seminars, conferences and performances through the Faculty itself, and the Centre for Research in Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities (CRASSH). Of particular value in developing the directions of my research was the insightful advice of Professor John Rink who supervised my visit. Professor Adam Kendon’s kind words, especially during my time in Cambridge, were instrumental in encouraging me to complete this thesis. During my time post-fieldwork I was fortunate to be appointed Director of Music and elected Bye-Fellow of Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge which provided me with an academic base in the UK and I thank the College for allowing me the privilege of working alongside some of Britain’s leading musicians as I continued to develop my work. Finally, my deepest thanks go to the three people who have been most influential on my journey to understanding orchestral interaction. My first conducting teacher Professor John Hopkins, who sadly is no longer here to read this work, instilled in me a deep curiosity about how conducting gesture works and the importance of understanding musicians as people behind the instruments. My co-supervisor Professor Tim McNamara opened my eyes to the possibilities of linguistics research and introduced me to a world of theoretical conceptualisation that taught me how to think and transformed my perspectives on social interaction. My supervisor, Associate Professor Barb Kelly, balanced giving me intellectual freedom with unwavering support, kind but incisive commentary and genuinely inspirational guidance; without her input and encouragement none of this research would ever have even been attempted. I dedicate this thesis to my children and partner; all of whom have been incredibly distracting throughout the entire process. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .............................................................................................. 10 2. The orchestra ............................................................................................ 13 2.1. Origins and definition of the orchestra ..................................................... 13 2.2. Orchestral music ......................................................................................... 18 2.3. The orchestral organisation ....................................................................... 21 3. Literature review ....................................................................................... 23 3.1. Musician interaction in the literature ........................................................ 23 3.2. Making the internal external ...................................................................... 35 3.3. Groups in social interaction ...................................................................... 36 3.4. Cognition in group settings ....................................................................... 48 3.5. Gesture in social interaction ...................................................................... 51 3.6. Summary ...................................................................................................... 58 4. Methodology ............................................................................................. 59 4.1. Aim and research questions ...................................................................... 59 4.2. Data .............................................................................................................. 60 4.3. Participants ................................................................................................. 69 4.4. Data presentation ........................................................................................ 70 4.5. Key theoretical perspectives and methodological frameworks ............. 71 4.6. Coding and definitions ............................................................................... 76 4.7. Summary ...................................................................................................... 87 5. Creating the rehearsal ............................................................................. 88 5.1. Space and time in orchestral rehearsal .................................................... 88 5.2. Purpose, goals and work in orchestral rehearsal .................................... 91 5.3. Orchestral rehearsal as work ..................................................................... 94 5.4. Space, time, artefacts and mutual goals .................................................. 98 5.5. Time and space in orchestral rehearsal as stance-taking .................... 118 5.6. Summary .................................................................................................... 121 6. Conductor gesture ................................................................................. 123 6.1. Conducting as gesture: the example of beating .................................... 123 6.2. The baton ................................................................................................... 144 6.3. Composite utterance ................................................................................ 147 6.4. Conductor