oa Showing ‘digital’ objects in web-based video chats as a collaborative achievement

References

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. Goodwin, C.
   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. Goodwin, C.
   2003 “Pointing as Situated Practice.” InPointing. Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, ed. byS. Kita, 217–241. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Goodwin, C.
   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 2014 User 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. Heath, C., and P. Luff
    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.
    2003 Pointing. 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. Licoppe, C., and J. Morel
    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. Mondada, L.
    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.
    2009 Privacy 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. Rosenbaun, L., S. Rafaeli, and D. Kurzon
    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.
    1992 Lectures 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]