1887
Volume 12, Issue 5
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the use of social media in contemporary family interaction from a linguistic ethnographic perspective. Inspired by Auer’s (1998) work on code-switching in conversation, we study how family members choose and sometimes alternate between digitally mediated and face-to-face modes of communication in various family settings. Based on ethnographic observations, the participants’ metapragmatic reflections, and their interactional orientations to mode choices, we show how such choices serve social and metapragmatic functions in the interaction between family members who are present in the same house or even in the same room. Accordingly, we argue in favor of situating peoples’ polymedia repertoires in a broader framework of communicative repertoires.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20050.can
2022-02-07
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Androutsopoulos, Jannis, and Andreas Stæhr
    2018 “Moving Methods Online – Researching Digital Language Practices”. InThe Routledge Handbook on Language and Superdiversity, ed. byAngela Creese and Adrian Blackledge, 118–132. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315696010‑10
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315696010-10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Auer, Peter
    1988 “A Conversation Analytic Approach to Code-Switching and Transfer”. InCodeswitching: Anthropological and Sociolinguistic Perspectives, ed. byMonica Heller, 187–213. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110849615.187
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110849615.187 [Google Scholar]
  3. 1995 “The Pragmatics of Code-Switching. A Sequential Approach”. InOne Speaker, Two Languages: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Code-Switching, ed. byLesley Milroy and Peter Muysken, 115–135. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620867.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620867.006 [Google Scholar]
  4. (ed.) 1998Code-Switching in Conversation: Language, Interaction and Identity. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Lynn S.
    2013The Parent App. Understanding Families in the Digital Age. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Copland, Fiona, and Angela Creese
    2015Linguistic Ethnography. Collecting, Analysing and Presenting Data. London: Sage. 10.4135/9781473910607
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473910607 [Google Scholar]
  7. Drotner, Kirsten
    1999 “Dangerous Media? Panic Discourses and Dilemmas of Modernity”. Paedagogica Historica35(3): 593–619. 10.1080/0030923990350303
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0030923990350303 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gershon, Ilana
    2010 “Media Ideologies: An Introduction”. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology20: 283–293. 10.1111/j.1548‑1395.2010.01070.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1395.2010.01070.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Goffman, Erving
    1955 “On Face-Work: Psychiatry”. Journal of Interpersonal Relations18: 213–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 1963Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1971Relations in Public: Micro-studies of the Public Order. London: Allen Lane, the Penguin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1981Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Goodwin, Marjorie H., and Asta Cekaite
    2018Embodied Family Choreography: Practices of Control, Care, and Mundane Activity. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315207773
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315207773 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hutchby, Ian
    2001 “Technologies, Text and Affordances”. Sociology35 (2): 441–456. 10.1177/S0038038501000219
    https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038501000219 [Google Scholar]
  16. Jewitt, Carey
    (ed.) 2009The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jones, Rodney H.
    2009 “Technology and Sites of Display”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis, ed. byCarey Jewitt, 114–126. London and New York: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jones, Rodney. H., Alice Chik, and Christoph A. Hafner
    (eds.) 2015Discourse and Digital Practices. Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age. London and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315726465
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315726465 [Google Scholar]
  19. Jørgensen, Kristian M.
    2016 “The Media Go-along. Researching Mobilities with Media at Hand”. MedieKultur: Journal of Media and Communication Research60: 32–49. 10.7146/mediekultur.v32i60.22429
    https://doi.org/10.7146/mediekultur.v32i60.22429 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kress, Gunther
    2010Multimodality. A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ling, Rich, and Jonathan Donner
    2009Mobile communications. Cambridge: Polity Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Madianou, Mirca, and Daniel Miller
    2012Migration and New Media: Transnational Families and Polymedia. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Madsen, Lian M.
    forthc. “Media panic, medical discourse and the smart phone”. In: Spaces of upset in the Nordic region: Sociolinguistics beyond cohesion and consensus in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden. International Journal of the Sociology of Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Makoni, Sinfree, and Alastair Pennycook
    2006 “Disinventing and reconstituting languages”. In: Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, ed. bySinfree Makoni and Alastair Pennycook, 1–41. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853599255‑003
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853599255-003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Mortensen, Kristine K., and N. N. Brotherton
    2020 “Faces in Snapchat. Selfies and social media aesthetics”. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, # 266. London: King’s College London.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Norris, Sigrid
    2013 “What is a Mode? Smell, Olfactory Perception, and the Notion of Mode in Multimodal Mediated Theory”. Multimodal Communication2(2): 155–159. 10.1515/mc‑2013‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2013-0008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Rampton, Ben
    1995Crossing: Language and Ethnicity among Adolescents. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Rampton, Ben, Karen Tusting, Jannet Maybin, Richard Barwell, Angela Creese, and Vally Lytra
    2004UK Linguistic Ethnography: A Discussion Paper. Paper published atwww.ling-ethnog.org.uk
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Rampton, Ben, and Louise Eley
    2018 “Goffman and the Everyday Interactional Grounding of Surveillance”. Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, # 246. King’s College London.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 “Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description”. InMeaning in anthropology, ed. byKeith H. Basso and Henry A. Selby, 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1985 “Language and the Culture of Gender”. InSemiotic mediation, ed. byElizabeth Mertz and Rick Parmentier, 219–259. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑491280‑9.50016‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-491280-9.50016-9 [Google Scholar]
  32. 1993 “Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function”. InReflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. byJohn Lucy, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004 [Google Scholar]
  33. Tannen, Deborah
    2013 “The Medium is the Meta-Message”. InDiscourse 2.0: Language and New Media, ed. byDeborah Tannen and Anna M. Trester, 99–117. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.20050.can
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