Cover not available
Part of
Media as Procedures of Communication
Edited by Martin Luginbühl and Jan Georg Schneider
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 348] 2024
► pp. 41–66

Chapter 3
Format as the locus of negotiating media procedures

The case of a Zoom seminar session

| University of Bielefeld
| University of Halle
This article suggests a conceptual framework which can be used to trace the negotiation of media procedures. For this purpose, we extend a model of communication form (Brock and Schildhauer 2017) by incorporating the component format as the place where the use of medial affordances and genre patterns is negotiated for specific, situated use in a given community. We argue that these negotiation process can be described along the dimensions of scope, explicitness as well as emergence and provide a micro-analysis of various sequences of a Zoom seminar session to provide some empirical grounding for our considerations. The analysis illustrates various combinations of the dimensions suggested. Thus, it not only provides fresh insights into how participants negotiate media procedures in situ, but also substantiates the models of communication form and format empirically.
Keywords: communication form, genre, format, negotiation, video conferencing, affordances
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Interaction through video-conferencing systems
    • 2.2A procedural model
  • 3.Study design
    • 3.1Case study: A workshop session taught via Zoom
    • 3.2Method
  • 4.Case study: Negotiating medial procedures
    • 4.1Negotiating turn-taking
    • 4.2Negotiating relevant genre patterns with regard to perceived affordances
    • 4.3Local pattern re-negotiation
    • 4.4Making an emergent implicit pattern explicit
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (49)
References
Bliesener, Thomas. 2015. “Kodierung von Bildinhalten in Videokonferenzen.” In Telekommunikation gegen Isolation, edited by Jens Loenhoff, H. Walter Schmitz, 189–224. Wiesbaden: Springer. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brock, Alexander. 2009. “Zur Variation komischer Textsorten — der Fall britischer Fernseh-Comedies.” In Schlüsselqualifikation Sprache: Anforderungen — Standards — Vermittlung, edited by Friedrich Lenz, 235–253. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Lang (= Forum Angewandte Linguistik, 50).Google Scholar
. 2015. “Comedy Panel Show, Dramedy und Improv-Comedy. Zur kulturellen Ausdifferenzierung komischer Fernsehgenres in Großbritannien.” In Das Komische in der Kultur, edited by Hajo Diekmannshenke, 193–208. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
. 2019. “The Emergence of Contemporary British TV Sitcoms.” In Genre Emergence. Developments in Print, TV and Digital Media, edited by Alexander Brock, Jana Pflaeging, and Peter Schildhauer, 107–127. Berlin et al.: Lang.Google Scholar
Brock, Alexander, Jana Pflaeging, and Peter Schildhauer (eds). (2019). Genre Emergence. Developments in Print, TV and Digital Media. Berlin et al.: Lang.Google Scholar
Brock, Alexander, and Peter Schildhauer. 2017. “Communication Form. A Concept Revisited.” In Communication Forms and Communicative Practices. New Perspectives on Communication Forms, Affordances and What Users Make of Them, edited by Alexander Brock, and Peter Schildhauer, 13–43. Frankfurt a. M. et al.: Lang.Google Scholar
Camilleri, Mark Anthony, and Adriana Caterina Camilleri. 2021. “The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19.” Technology, Knowledge and Learning 27: 1311–1333. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creeber, Glen. 2015. “Genre and Format.” In The Television Genre Book (Third Edition), edited by Glen Creeber, 11–12. London: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2000. “Ethnographische Gesprächsanalyse: Zu Nutzen und Notwendigkeit von Ethnographie für die Konversationsanalyse. Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 1(1): 96–124.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf, Helmuth Feilke, and Angelika Linke. 2016. “Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken: Eine Annäherung aus linguistischer Sicht.” In Sprachliche und kommunikative Praktiken: Eine Annäherung aus linguistischer Sicht, edited by Arnulf Deppermann, Helmuth Feilke, and Angelika Linke, 1–24. Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duffy, Sam, and Patrick G. T. Healey. 2014. “The Conversational Organization of Musical Contributions.” Psychology of Music 42(6): 888–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 2004. “Semiotic Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning.” In An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, edited by Rebecca Rogers, 225–235. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin, and Thora Tenbrink. 2002. “Video Conferencing in a Transregional Research Cooperation: Turn−Taking in a New Medium.” In Connecting Perspectives. Videokonferenz: Beiträge zu ihrer Erforschung und Anwendung, edited by Jana Döring, H. Walter Schmitz, and Olaf A. Schulte, 89–104. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.Google Scholar
Friebel, Martin, Jens Loenhoff, H. Walter Schmitz, and Olaf A. Schulte. 2003. “‘Siehst Du mich?’ — ‘Hörst Du mich?’ Videokonferenzen als Gegenstand kommunikationswissenschaftlicher Forschung.” Kommunikation @ Gesellschaft 4: 1–22.Google Scholar
Fusco, Serafina, and Marta Perrotta. 2008. “Rethinking the Format as a Theoretical Object in the Age of Media Convergence.” Observatorio (OBS*) Journal 7: 89–102.Google Scholar
Hallet, Wolfgang. 2016. Genres im fremdsprachlichen und bilingualen Unterricht: Formen und Muster der sprachlichen Interaktion. Seelze: Klett. [URL]Google Scholar
Hausendorf, Heiko. 2020. “Geht es auch ohne Interaktion?” Aptum, Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur 16(3): 86–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Christian, and Paul Luff. 1992. “Media Space and Communicative Asymmetries: Preliminary Observations of Video-Mediated Interaction.” Human — Computer Interaction 7(3): 315–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Christian, Paul Luff, and Abigail Sellen. 1997. “Reconfiguring Media Space: Supporting Collaborative Work.” In Video-Mediated Communication, edited by Kathleen Finn, Abigail Sellen, and Sylvia Wilbur, 323–347. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Heinemann, Wolfgang. 2000. “Textsorte-Textmuster-Texttyp.” In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik / Linguistics of Text and Conversation. 1. Halbband, edited by Klaus Brinker, Gerd Antos, Wolfgang Heinemann, and Sven F. Sager, 507–523. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1985. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of Its Sequential Placement.” In Structures of Social Action, edited by J. Maxwell Atkinson, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hjulstad, Johan. 2016. “Practices of Organizing Built Space in Videoconference-Mediated Interactions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(4): 325–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian. 2001. Conversation and Technology: From the Telephone to the Internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lemke, Jay L. 1999. Typology, Topology, Topography: Genre Semantics. [URL] (accessed 08.11.2022).
Lewis, Alwyn V., and Charles Nightingale. 1999. “The Paradox of Videotelephony — Unconscious Assumptions and Undervalued Skills.” BT Technology Journal 17(1): 47–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Licoppe, Christian, and Julien Morel. 2012. “Video-in-Interaction: “Talking Heads” and the Multimodal Organization of Mobile and Skype Video Calls.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(4): 399–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin. 2006. “Lokale Charakteristika globalisierter Fernsehnachrichten — Ein diachroner Vergleich von Textsorten in der amerikanischen ‘CBS Evening News’ und der Schweizer ‘Tagesschau’.” Medienwissenschaft Schweiz 1 + 2: 3–14.Google Scholar
. 2014. Medienkultur und Medienlinguistik. Komparative Textsortengeschichte(n) der amerikanischen “CBS Evening News” und der Schweizer “Tagesschau”. Bern et al.: Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luginbühl, Martin, and Jan Georg Schneider. 2020. “Medial Shaping from the Outset: On the Mediality of the Second Presidential Debate, 2016.” Journal for Media Linguistics (jfml) 3(1): 57–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mäntynen, Anne, and Susanna Shore. 2014. “What is Meant by Hybridity? An Investigation of Hybridity and Related Terms in Genre Studies.” Text & Talk 34(6): 737–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mirrlees, Tanner, and Joseph Kispal-Kovacs. 2012. The Television Reader: Critical Perspective in Canadian and US Television Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mlynář, Jakub, Esther González-Martínez, and Denis Lalann. 2018. “Situated Organization of Video-Mediated Interaction: A Review of Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Studies.” Interacting with Computers 30(2): 73–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. 2007a. “Imbrications de la technologie et de l’ordre interactionnel. L’organisation de vérifications et d’identifications de problèmes pendant la visioconférence.” Réseaux 144(5): 141–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. “Operating Together through Videoconference: Members’ Procedures for Accomplishing a Common Space of Action.” In Orders of Ordinary Action: Respecifying Sociological Knowledge, edited by Stephen Hester, and David Francis, 51–67. Oxon, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Eröffnungen und Prä-Eröffnungen in medienvermittelter Interaktion: Das Beispiel Videokonferenzen.” In Situationseröffnungen: Zur multimodalen Herstellung fokussierter Interaktion, edited by Lorenza Mondada, and Reinhold Schmitt, 277–334. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, Simona, and Ufuk Balaman. 2021. “The Routinization of Grammar as a Social Action Format: A Longitudinal Study of Video-Mediated Interactions.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 54(2): 183–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rintel, Sean. 2013. “Video Calling in Long-Distance Relationships: The Opportunistic use of Audio/Video Distortions as a Relational Resource.” The Electronic Journal of Communication 22(1).Google Scholar
Rosenbaun, Laura, Sheizaf Rafaeli, and Dennis Kurzon. 2016. “Blurring the Boundaries between Domestic and Digital Spheres: Competing Engagements in Public Google Hangouts.” Pragmatics 26(2): 291–314. [URL]Google Scholar
Ruhleder, Karen, and Brigitte Jordan. 2001. “Co-Constructing Non-Mutual Realities: Delay-Generated Trouble in Distributed Interaction.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 10(1): 113–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey. 1985. “Notes on Methodology.” In Structures of Social Action, edited by Maxwell J. Atkinson, 21–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schildhauer, Peter. 2016. The Personal Weblog: A Linguistic History. Berlin et al.: Lang.Google Scholar
Schramm, Karen. 2014. “Besondere Forschungsansätze: Videobasierte Unterrichtsforschung.” In Empirische Forschungsmethoden für Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache, edited by Julia Settinieri, Sevilen Demirkaya, Alexis Feldmeier, Nazan Gültekin-Karakoç, and Claudia Riemer, 243–254. Paderborn: Schöningh. [URL]Google Scholar
Seedhouse, Paul. 2004. The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley.Google Scholar
Selting, Margaret, Peter Auer, Dagmar Barth-Weingarten, Jörg Bergmann, Pia Bergmann, Karin Birkner, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen, Arnulf Deppermann, Peter Gilles, Susanne Günthner, Martin Hartung, Friederike Kern, Christine Mertzlufft, Christian Meyer, Miriam Morek, Frank Oberzaucher, Jörg Peters, Uta Quasthoff, Wilfried Schütte, Anja Stukenbrock, and Susanne Uhmann. 2009. “Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2).” Gesprächsforschung — Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion 10: 353–402.Google Scholar
Short, John, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie. 1976. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John, and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stöckl, Hartmut. 2010. “Textsortenentwicklung und Textverstehen als Metamporphosen — Am Beispiel der Werbung.” In Mediale Transkodierungen: Metamorphosen zwischen Sprache, Bild und Ton, edited by Hartmut Stöckl, and Christian Grösslinger, 145–172. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Vogt, Rüdiger. 2015. Kommunikation im Unterricht: Diskursanalytische Konzepte für den Fachunterricht — Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz. [URL]Google Scholar