Volume 27, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



This paper focuses on how conversation and a shared participation frame are maintained in video-mediated family conversations which ordinarily do not have a particular agenda. In order to examine this question, how conversations are maintained whilst being sometimes improvised, the paper analyses a particular interactional phenomenon, namely, the image-based topic management accomplished via two methods: showings and noticings. Through a detailed multimodal analysis of family video mediated conversations, it shows how these methods are used for introducing or changing topics and hence sustaining talk. Moreover, by describing the practical actions that involve technological and social dimensions, the paper highlights the link between interaction, personal relationships and technology. The analysis of showings and noticings, enabled by the technical features of the systems used by the participants, reveals how video-communication technology is mobilized by family members as a resource for maintaining intimacy in distant relationships.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  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. Button, G., and N. Casey
    1984 “Generating Topic: The Use of Topic Initial Elicitors.” InStructures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byJ. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 165–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Coupland, J.
    (ed.) 2000Small talk. Essex, UK: Longman Harlow.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Coupland, J., and A. Jaworski
    2003 “Transgression and Intimacy in Reconnaitre Talk Narratives.” Research on Language and Social interaction36: 85–106. doi: 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_5
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Drew, P., and K. Chilton
    2000 “Calling just to Keep in Touch: Regular and Habitualised Telephone Calls as an Environment for Small Talk.” InSmall talk, ed. byJ. Coupland, 137–162. Essex, UK: Longman Harlow.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Goffman, E.
    1964 “The Neglected Situation.” American Anthropologist66: 133–6. doi: 10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090 [Google Scholar]
  7. Jefferson, G.
    1978a “What’s in a ‘Nyem’?” Sociology12 (1): 135–139. doi: 10.1177/003803857801200109
    https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857801200109 [Google Scholar]
  8. 1978b “Sequential Aspects of Storytelling in Conversation.” InStudies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, ed. byJ. N. Schenkein, 213–248. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kirk, D., A. Sellen, and X. Cao
    2010 “Home Video Communication: Mediating Closeness.” Proceedings of CSCW: ACM Press: pp.135–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Levinson, S. C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Licoppe, C., and J. Morel
    2014 “Mundane Video Directors in Interaction. Showing One’s Environment in Skype and Mobile Video Calls.” InM. Broth, E. Laurier, and L. Mondada (eds.), Studies of Video Practices, Video at Work, 135–160. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Maynard, D. W.
    1980 “Placement of Topic Choices in Conversation.” Semiotica30: 263–290. doi: 10.1515/semi.1980.30.3‑4.263
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.30.3-4.263 [Google Scholar]
  13. Maynard, D. W., and D. H. Zimmerman
    1984 “Topical Talk, Ritual and the Social Organization of Relationships.” Social Psychology Quarterly, vol.47: 301–316. doi: 10.2307/3033633
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3033633 [Google Scholar]
  14. Relieu, M.
    2007 “La téléprésence, ou l’autre visiophonie.” In«De la rue au tribunal. Etudes sur la visiocommunication. Réseaux144, ed. byC. Licoppe, and M. Relieu, 183–224. Paris: Hermès.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Radford, J. and C. Tarplee
    2000 “The Management of Conversational Topic by a Ten Year Old Child with Pragmatic Difficulties.” Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 14: 5.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Sacks, H.
    1992Lectures on Conversation. 2vol., ed. byG. Jefferson. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 1984 “On Doing ‘Being Ordinary.’” InStructures of social action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. byM. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 413–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Schegloff, E. A.
    1968 “Sequencing in Conversational Openings.” American Anthropologist70 (6): 1075–1095. doi: 10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1968.70.6.02a00030 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1990 “The Organization of Sequences as a Source of Coherence in Talk-in-Interaction.” InConversational Organization and its Development, ed. byB. Dorval, 51–77. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Sunakawa, C.
    2012 “Japanese Family via Webcam: An Ethnographic Study of Cross-Spatial Interactions.” InLecture Notes, in Computer Science, vol.7258, ed. byM. Okumura, D. Bekki, and K. Satoh, 264–276. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]

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