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



Showing material objects by bringing them to the camera or turning the camera toward them are pervasive practices in domestic and recreational video-mediated communication (VMC). We here discuss a set of specific showing practices characteristic of digitally embedded video-mediated settings, which may be called ‘digital showings’. These involve participants’ collaboration to retrieve a digital object so as to ensure a shared perceptual experience on screen of said object. We draw on data from multiparty Google Hangouts On Air (HOAs) to show that while digital and material showings share an overall sequential organization, the former display the emergence of unique collaborative practices that at times become collective performances of computer literacy. We focus on three instances of digital showings: (a) screenshares of pictures – showing an image by sharing one’s screen; (b) screenshares of videos – showing a running video by sharing one’s screen; and (c) link-share showings – showing by sharing the link to a showable content that may be independently retrieved while experienced jointly.

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

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aaltonen, T., I. Arminen, and A. Raudaskoski
    2014 “Photo Sharing as a Joint Activity Between an Aphasic Speaker and Others.” InInteracting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity, ed. byM. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, and M. Rauniomaa, 125–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 125–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Buhler, T., C. Neustaedter, and S. Hillman
    2013 “How and why Teenagers Use Video Chat.” Proceedings of the 2013 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 759–768.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Clark, H.
    2003 “Pointing and Placing.” InPointing. Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, ed. byS. Kita, 243–268. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chovanec, J., and A. Novaka
    2010 “Online Discussion and Interaction: The Case of Live Text Commentary.” InCases in Online Discussion and Interaction, ed. byLeonard Shedletsky, and Joan E. Aitken, 234–251. Hershey: IGI Publishing. doi: 10.4018/978‑1‑61520‑863‑0.ch012
    https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-863-0.ch012 [Google Scholar]
  5. Goodwin, C.
    2000a “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics32 (10): 1489–1522. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00096‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X [Google Scholar]
  6. 2000b “Practices of Seeing. Visual Analysis: An Ethnomethodological Approach.” InHandbook of Visual Analysis, ed. byT. van Leeuwen, and C. Jewitt, 157–182. London: Sage Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003 “Pointing as Situated Practice.” InPointing. Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, ed. byS. Kita, 217–241. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2013 “The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 8–23. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Google
    Google 2014User Content and Conduct Policy. Retrieved fromwww.google.com/+/policy/content.html
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Heath, C., and P. Luff
    1991 “Disembodied Conduct: Communication through Video in a Multi-Media Office Environment.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems99–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1992 “Collaboration and Control: Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)1 (1–2): 69–94. doi: 10.1007/BF00752451
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00752451 [Google Scholar]
  12. Heath, C., and D. Von Lehn
    2004 “Configuring Reception. (Dis-)Regarding the ‘Spectator’ in Museums and Galleries.” Theory, Culture & Society21 (6): 43–65. doi: 10.1177/0263276404047415
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404047415 [Google Scholar]
  13. Heritage, J.
    1984 “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. Structures of Social Action.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byJ. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Kita, S.
    2003Pointing. Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Licoppe, C., and J. Morel
    2012 “Video-in-Interaction:“Talking Heads” and the Multimodal Organization of Mobile and Skype Video Calls.” Research on Language & Social Interaction45 (4): 399–429. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.724996
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724996 [Google Scholar]
  16. 2014 “Mundane Video Directors in Interaction: Showing one’s Environment in Skype and Mobile Video Calls.” Studies of Video Practices: Video at Work, 135–160. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Litt, E.
    2012 “Knock, Knock. Who’s there? The Imagined Audience.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56 (3): 330–345. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2012.705195
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2012.705195 [Google Scholar]
  18. Luff, P., C. Heath, H. Kuzuoka, J. Hindmarsh, K. Yamazaki, and S. Oyama
    2003 “Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration.” InHuman Computer Interaction, 51–84. doi: 10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327051HCI1812_3 [Google Scholar]
  19. Mondada, L.
    2011 “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (2): 542–552. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.08.019 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2013 “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-Party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics46 (1): 39–68. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  21. Nissenbaum, H.
    2009Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. O’Hara, K., A. Black, and M. Lipson
    2006 “Everyday Practices with Mobile Video Telephony.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 871–880. doi: 10.1145/1124772.1124900
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124900 [Google Scholar]
  23. Oviatt, S.
    1999 “Ten Myths of Multimodal Interaction.” Communications of the ACM42 (11): 74–81. doi: 10.1145/319382.319398
    https://doi.org/10.1145/319382.319398 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pomerantz, A.
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byJ. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Raymond, G.
    2003 “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1519752 [Google Scholar]
  26. Rintel, S.
    2013 “Tech-Tied or Tongue-Tied? Technological versus Social Trouble in Relational Video Calling.” 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 3343–3352. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2013.512
    https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.512 [Google Scholar]
  27. Robles, E., J. Raclaw, and S. M. DiDomenico
    2016 “Mobile Phones as an Interactional Resource in Assessment Activities.” (forthcoming).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rosenbaun, L., S. Rafaeli, and D. Kurzon
    2016a “Participation Frameworks in Multiparty Video Chats: Cross-Modal Exchanges in Public Google Hangouts.” Journal of Pragmatics94: 29–46. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2016b “Blurring the Boundaries Between Domestic and Digital Spheres: Competing Engagements in Public Google Hangouts.” Pragmatics26(2):291–314. doi: 10.1075/prag.26.2.05ros
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.2.05ros [Google Scholar]
  30. Sacks, H.
    1992Lectures on conversation, ed. byG. Jefferson. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Watson, R.
    1997 “Some General Reflections on ‘Categorization’ and ‘Sequence’ in the Analysis of Conversation.” InCulture in Action. Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. byS. Hester, and P. Eglin, 49–75. Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Weilenmann, A., and C. Larsson
    2001 “ Local Use and Sharing of Mobile Phones.” InWireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age, ed. byB. Brown, N. Green, and R. Harper, 92–107. London: 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