1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics
  4. Volume 27, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 27, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

This paper identifies salient properties of how talk about video communication is organised interactionally, and how this interaction invokes an implied order of behaviour that is treated as ‘typical’ and ‘accountably representative’ of video communication. This invoked order will be called an . This is an implied orientation to action, one that is used as a jointly managed interpretative schema that allows video communication to be talked about and understood as rationally, purposively and collaboratively undertaken in particular, ‘known in common’ ways. This applies irrespective of whether the actions in question are prospective (are about to happen) or have been undertaken in the past and are being accounted for in the present or are ‘generally the case’ – in current talk. The paper shows how this constitutive device also aids in sense making through such things as topic management in video-mediated interaction, and in elaborating the salience of the relationship between this and the patterned governance of social affairs – viz, mother-daughter, friend-friend – as normatively achieved outcomes. It will be shown how the interrogative gaze is variously appropriate and consequentially invoked not just in terms of what is done in a video call or making such calls accountable, but in helping articulate different orders of connection between persons, and how these orders have implications for sensible and appropriate behaviour in video calling and hence, for the type of persons who are involved. This, in turn, explains how a decision to avoid using video communication is made an accountably reasonable thing to do. The relevance of these findings for the sociology of everyday life and the philosophy of action are explored.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.3.02har
2017-10-16
2024-09-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.3.02har
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.27.3.02har.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.3.02har&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Adato, A.
    1980 “Occasionality as a Constituent Feature of the Known-in-common Character of Topics.” Human Studies3: 47–64. doi: 10.1007/BF02331800
     https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02331800 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronsson, K., and A. Cekaite
    2011 “Activity Contracts and Directives in Everyday Family Politics.” Discourse and Society22 (2): 137–54. doi: 10.1177/0957926510392124
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510392124 [Google Scholar]
  3. Davidson, D.
    1963 “Action, Reasons, and Causes.” Journal of Philosophy60: 685–700, repr. inAction & Events, 1980: 3–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Duranti, A., and C. Goodwin
    1992 “Editors’ Introduction.” Rethinking Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Elias, N.
    1969 (or 1939) The Civilizing Process. Vol. I. The History of Manners. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Fitzgerald, R., and W. Housley
    2015 Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis. London: Sage. doi: 10.4135/9781473917873
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917873 [Google Scholar]
  7. Garfinkel, H.
    1967 Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Garfinkel, H., M. Lynch, and E. Livingston
    1981 “The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically-Delivered Pulsar.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 11: 131–58. doi: 10.1177/004839318101100202
     https://doi.org/10.1177/004839318101100202 [Google Scholar]
  9. Garfinkel, H., and H. Sacks
    1970 “On Formal Structures of Practical Actions.” InTheoretical Sociology: Perspectives and Developments, ed. byJ. C. McKinney, and E. A. Tiryakian, 337–366. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Goldman, A.
    2006 Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology and Neuroscience of Mind Reading. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0195138929.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/0195138929.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. Goodwin, C.
    1981 Conversational Organization, Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hanson, N. R.
    1972 Observation and Explanation: A Guide to Philosophy of Science. London: George Allen and Unwin.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Harper, R.
    2010 Texture: Human Expression in the Age of Communications Overload. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Harper, R., D. Randall, and W. Sharrock
    2016 Choice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Harper, R., D. R. Watson, and J. Woelfer
    . This issue. “The Skype Paradox: Homelessness and Selective Intimacy in the Use of Communications Technology.” InSpecial Issue of Pragmatics, Interpersonal video communication as a site of human sociality ed. by Harper et al.Pragmatics27 (3):. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ingold, T.
    2011 Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. Abingdon: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Hume, D.
    [1739–40] 1974 A Treatise on Human Nature, 2nd Edition, ed.P. Niddich. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Laugier, S.
    2000 Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Leist, A.
    (ed.) 2007 Action in Context. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110898798
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110898798 [Google Scholar]
  20. Lynch, M.
    1993 Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodology and Social Studies of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Madianou, M., and D. Miller
    2012 Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Maynard, D. W.
    1988 “Language, Interaction, and Social Problems.” Social Problems35: 311–334. doi: 10.2307/800590
     https://doi.org/10.2307/800590 [Google Scholar]
  23. Miller, D., and J. Sininan
    2014 Webcam. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Papacharissi, Z.
    (ed.) 2011 A Networked Self. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Rintel, S., R. Harper, and K. O’Hara
    2016 “The Tyranny of the Everyday in Mobile Video Messaging.” Proceedings of CH’16. San Jose: ACM Press. doi: 10.1145/2858036.2858042
     https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858042 [Google Scholar]
  26. Sacks, H.
    1972 “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data for Doing Sociology.” InStudies in Social Interaction, ed. byD. Sudnow, 31–74. New York: The Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. 1974 “On the Analysability of Stories by Children.” InEthnomethodology: Selected Readings, ed. byR. Turner, 216–232. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 1992 Lectures on Conversation, VolumesI & II. Malden: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Sacks, H., and E. Schegloff
    1979 “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction.” InEveryday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. byG. Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Sandis, C.
    2012 The Things We Do and Why We Do Them. Basingstoke: Palgrave. doi: 10.1057/9780230360105
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230360105 [Google Scholar]
  31. Searle, J. R.
    1963 “Proper Names.” InPhilosophy and Ordinary Language, ed. byC. E. Caton, 154–161. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Sharrock, W. W., and D. R. Watson
    1984 “What’s the Point of “Rescuing Motives”?” British Journal of Sociology, 35 (3): 435–51. doi: 10.2307/590974
     https://doi.org/10.2307/590974 [Google Scholar]
  33. Velleman, J. D.
    2013 Foundations for Moral Relativism. Cambridge: Open Book. doi: 10.11647/OBP.0029
     https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0029 [Google Scholar]
  34. Watson, D. R.
    1981 “Conversational and Organisational Uses of Proper Names: An Aspect of Counsellor-Client Interaction.” InMedical Work: Realities and Routines, ed. byP. Atkinson, and C. Heath, 91–108. Farnborough: Gower.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. 2005 “The Visibility Arrangements of Public Space: Conceptual Resources and Methodological Issues in Analysing Pedestrian Movements.” InCommunication and Cognition, Special Issue, ed. byM. Ball, 38 (3/4): 201–229.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 “Trust in Interpersonal Interaction and Cloud Computing.” InTrust, Computing and Society, ed. byR. H. R. Harper, 172–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139828567.012
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139828567.012 [Google Scholar]
  37. Wittgenstein, L.
    1953 Philosophical Investigations, 4th Ed.transG. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, and J. Schulte, Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. 1964 The Blue and Brown Books. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.27.3.02har
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conversation analysis; ethnomethodology; family; friendship; participation frameworks; philosophy of action; reasoning; Skype; sociology; video calling; video mediated communication

Most Cited

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