1887
image of Navigating the complex social ecology of screen-based activity in video-mediated interaction
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Task-oriented video-mediated interaction takes place within a complex digital-social ecology which presents, to participants, a practical problem of social coordination: How to navigate, in mutually accountable ways, between interacting with the remote co-participants and scrutinizing one’s own screen –which suspends interaction–, for instance when searching for information on a search engine. Using conversation analysis for the examination of screen-recorded dyadic interactions, this study identifies a range of practices participants draw on to alert co-participants to incipient suspensions of talk. By accounting for such suspensions as being task-related through verbal alerts, typically in the form , participants successfully ‘buy time’, which allows them to fully concentrate on their screen activity and thereby ensure the progression of task accomplishment. We discuss how these findings contribute to our understanding of the complex ecologies of technology-mediated interactions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20023.bal
2021-08-31
2021-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arminen, Ilkka
    2005Institutional Interaction: Studies of Talk at Work. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arminen, Ilkka, Inka Koskela, and Hannele Palukka
    2014 “Multimodal Production of Second Pair Parts in Air Traffic Control Training.” Journal of Pragmatics65: 46–62. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.01.004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arminen, Ilkka, Christian Licoppe, and Anna Spagnolli
    2016 “Respecifying Mediated Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 290–309. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2016.1234614
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1234614 [Google Scholar]
  4. Balaman, Ufuk
    2018 “Task-Induced Development of Hinting Behaviors in Online Task-Oriented L2 Interaction.” Language Learning, 21. doi: 10125/44640
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Balaman, Ufuk, and Olcay Sert
    2017a “The Coordination of Online L2 Interaction and Orientations to Task Interface for Epistemic Progression.” Journal of Pragmatics115 (July): 115–29. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.01.015 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2017b “Development of L2 Interactional Resources for Online Collaborative Task Accomplishment.” Computer Assisted Language Learning30 (7): 601–30. doi:  10.1080/09588221.2017.1334667
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1334667 [Google Scholar]
  7. Balaman, Ufuk
    2019 “Sequential Organization of Hinting in Online Task-Oriented L2 Interaction.” Text & Talk39 (4): 511–34. doi:  10.1515/text‑2019‑2038
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-2038 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bilmes, Jack
    1994 “Constituting Silence: Life in the World of Total Meaning.” Semiotica98 (1–2): 73–88. doi:  10.1515/semi.1994.98.1‑2.73
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1994.98.1-2.73 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brandt, Adam
    2011 “The Maintenance of Mutual Understanding in Online Second Language Talk.” PhD Thesis, Newcastle University.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brandt, Adam, and Christopher Jenks
    2013 “Computer-Mediated Spoken Interaction: Aspects of Trouble in Multi-Party Chat Rooms.” [email protected]10: 1–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Due, Brian L.
    2015 “The Social Construction of a Glasshole: Google Glass and Multiactivity in Social Interaction.” PsychNology Journal13 (2): 149–178.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gardner, Rod, and Mike Levy
    2010 “The Coordination of Talk and Action in the Collaborative Construction of a Multimodal Text.” Journal of Pragmatics42 (8): 2189–2203. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Garfinkel, Harold
    1967Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hal.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2002Ethnomethodology’s Program: Working out Durkheim’s Aphorism. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Goodwin, Charles
    2013 “The Co-Operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 8–23. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2018Co-Operative Action. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness, and Charles Goodwin
    1986 “Gesture and Coparticipation in the Activity of Searching for a Word.” Semiotica, 62(1–2): 51–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Haddington, Pentti, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile
    eds. 2014Multiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking. John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.187
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187 [Google Scholar]
  19. Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff
    1993 “Disembodied Conduct: Interactional Asymmetries in Video-Mediated Communication.” InTechnology in Working Order: Studies of Work, Interaction, and Technology, edited byGraham Button, 35–54. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2000Technology in Action. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511489839
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489839 [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, John
    2007 “Intersubjectivity and Progressivity in Person (and Place) Reference.” InPerson Reference in Interaction: Linguistic, Cultural and Social Perspectives, edited byNick J. Enfield and Tanya Stivers, 255:255–80. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hjulstad, Johan
    2016 “Practices of Organizing Built Space in Videoconference-Mediated Interactions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 325–41. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2016.1199087
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1199087 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoey, Elliott M.
    2020 “Self-Authorizing Action: On Let Me X in English Social Interaction.” Language in Society, 1–24. doi:  10.1017/S0047404520000779
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404520000779 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jefferson, G.
    (2004) Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In. Conversation Analysis, Studies from First Generation, edited byGene Lerner, 13–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  25. Jenks, Christopher Joseph, and Adam Brandt
    2013 “Managing Mutual Orientation in the Absence of Physical Copresence: Multiparty Voice-Based Chat Room Interaction.” Discourse Processes50 (4): 227–48. doi:  10.1080/0163853X.2013.777561
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2013.777561 [Google Scholar]
  26. Knight, Janine, Melinda Dooly, and Elena Barberà
    2018 “Multimodal Meaning Making: Navigational Acts in Online Speaking Tasks.” System78: 65–78. 10.1016/j.system.2018.07.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.07.007 [Google Scholar]
  27. Licoppe, Christian, and Julien Morel
    2018 “Visuality, Text and Talk, and the Systematic Organization of Interaction in Periscope Live Video Streams.” Discourse Studies20 (5): 637–65. doi:  10.1177/1461445618760606
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618760606 [Google Scholar]
  28. Luff, Paul, Christian Heath, Hideaki Kuzuoka, Jon Hindmarsh, Keiichi Yamazaki, and Shinya Oyama
    2003 “Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration.” Human–Computer Interaction18 (1–2): 51–84. 10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_3 [Google Scholar]
  29. Luff, Paul, Christian Heath, Naomi Yamashita, Hideaki Kuzuoka, and Marina Jirotka
    2016 “Embedded Reference: Translocating Gestures in Video-Mediated Interaction.” Research on Language and Social Interaction49 (4): 342–61. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2016.1199088
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1199088 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mlynář, Jakub, Esther González-Martínez, and Denis Lalanne
    2018 “Situated Organization of Video-Mediated Interaction: A Review of Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Studies.” Interacting with Computers30 (2): 73–84. doi:  10.1093/iwc/iwx019
    https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwx019 [Google Scholar]
  31. Mondada, Lorenza
    2014 “The Temporal Orders of Multiactivity.” InMultiactivity in Social Interaction: Beyond Multitasking, edited byPentti Haddington, Tiina Keisanen, Lorenza Mondada, and Maurice Nevile, 33–75. John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/z.187.02mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.187.02mon [Google Scholar]
  32. Näslund, Shirley
    2016 “Tacit Tango: The Social Framework of Screen-Focused Silence in Institutional Telephone Calls.” Journal of Pragmatics91 (January): 60–79. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.10.008 [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Dowd, Robert, and Tim Lewis
    2016Online Intercultural Exchange: Policy, Pedagogy, Practice. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315678931
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678931 [Google Scholar]
  34. Oittinen, Tuire
    2018 “Multimodal Accomplishment of Alignment and Affiliation in the Local Space of Distant Meetings.” Culture and Organization24 (1): 31–53. 10.1080/14759551.2017.1386189
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2017.1386189 [Google Scholar]
  35. Oittinen, Tuire, and Arja Piirainen-Marsh
    2015 “Openings in Technology-Mediated Business Meetings.” Journal of Pragmatics85: 47–66. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Olbertz-Siitonen, Margarethe
    2015 “Transmission Delay in Technology-Mediated Interaction at Work.” PsychNology Journal13 (2–3): 203–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pekarek Doehler, Simona
    2011 “Emergent Grammar for All Practical Purposes: The On-line Formating of Dislocated Constructions in French Conversation.” InConstructions: Emerging and Emergent, edited byPeter Auer and Stefan Pfänder, 46–88. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110229080.45
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110229080.45 [Google Scholar]
  38. Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Anne-Sylvie Horlacher
    2013 The Patching together of Pivot-patterns in Talk-in-interaction: On ‘Double Dislocations’ in French. Journal of Pragmatics53: 92–108. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.04.002 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pekarek Doehler, Simona and Ufuk Balaman
    2021 “The Routinization of Grammar as a Social Action Format: A Longitudinal Study of Video-mediated Interactions”. Research on Language and Social Interaction. doi:  10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899710 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rintel, E. Sean
    2010 “Conversational Management of Network Trouble Perturbations in Personal Videoconferencing.” InProceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Interaction, 304–11. 10.1145/1952222.1952288
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952288 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rintel, Sean
    2013 “Video Calling in Long-Distance Relationships: The Opportunistic Use of Audio/Video Distortions as a Relational Resource.” The Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronic de Communication (EJC/REC)23.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Sacks, Harvey, and Emanuel A. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization Ofreference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, edited byGeorge Pathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50 (4): 696–735. doi:  10.2307/412243
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sert, Olcay, and Ufuk Balaman
    2018 “Orientations to Negotiated Language and Task Rules in Online L2 Interaction.” ReCALL30 (3): 355–74. doi:  10.1017/S0958344017000325
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344017000325 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1979 “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-Conversation.” InDiscourse and Syntax, edited byTalmy Givon, 261–86. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368897_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_012 [Google Scholar]
  46. 1996 “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, edited byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2007Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis I. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  48. Stivers, Tanya, and Jeffrey D. Robinson
    2006 “A Preference for Progressivity in Interaction.” Language in Society35 (3): 367–92. 10.1017/S0047404506060179
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404506060179 [Google Scholar]
  49. Suchman, Lucy A.
    2007Human-machine Reconfigurations. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Tuncer, Sylvaine, Oskar Lindwall, and Barry Brown
    2020 “Making time: Pausing to coordinate video ınstructions and practical tasks”. Symbolic Interaction. doi:  10.1002/symb.516
    https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.516 [Google Scholar]
  51. Whalen, Jack
    1995 “A Technology of Order Production: Computer-Aided Dispatch in Public Safety Communications.” InSituated Order: Studies in the Social Organization of Talk and Embodied Activities, edited byPaul ten Have and George Psathas, 187–230. Washington DC: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilkinson, Ray
    2009 “Projecting a Reference in Aphasic Talk and Normal Talk.” Discourse Processes, 46(2–3), 206–225. 10.1080/01638530902728892
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638530902728892 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20023.bal
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20023.bal
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error