Cover not available
Article published In:
Skype and domestic settings: Interpersonal video communication as a site of human sociality
Edited by Richard Harper, Rod Watson and Christian Licoppe
[Pragmatics 27:3] 2017
► pp. 419–446

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

|
| Telecom ParisTech, France
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.
Keywords: Google Hangouts On Air, video-mediated conversation, telepresence, conversation analysis, sequential organisation, digital showings
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Hangouts On Air
    • 2.1Example 1: The collaborative screen-shares of digital images
    • 2.2Example 2: Screen sharing a video clip as a collaborative activity
    • 2.3Example 3: Link-shares and the multiple layers of viewership
  • 3.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 16 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.3.05ros
References (32)
References
Aaltonen, T., I. Arminen, and A. Raudaskoski. 2014. “Photo Sharing as a Joint Activity Between an Aphasic Speaker and Others.” In Interacting with Objects: Language, Materiality, and Social Activity, ed. by M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, and M. Rauniomaa, 125–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 125–144.Google Scholar
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
Clark, H. 2003. “Pointing and Placing.” In Pointing. Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, ed. by S. Kita, 243–268. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chovanec, J., and A. Novaka. 2010. “Online Discussion and Interaction: The Case of Live Text Commentary.” In Cases in Online Discussion and Interaction, ed. by Leonard Shedletsky, and Joan E. Aitken, 234–251. Hershey: IGI Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C. 2000a. “Action and Embodiment within Situated Human Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000b. “Practices of Seeing. Visual Analysis: An Ethnomethodological Approach.” In Handbook of Visual Analysis, ed. by T. van Leeuwen, and C. Jewitt, 157–182. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
2003. “Pointing as Situated Practice.” In Pointing. Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet, ed. by S. Kita, 217–241. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
2013. “The Co-operative, Transformative Organization of Human Action and Knowledge.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 8–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Google, 2014. User Content and Conduct Policy. Retrieved from [URL]
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 Systems 99–103.Google Scholar
. 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 logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, C., and D. Von Lehn. 2004. “Configuring Reception. (Dis-)Regarding the ‘Spectator’ in Museums and Galleries.” Theory, Culture & Society 21 (6): 43–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J. 1984. “A Change-of-State Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. Structures of Social Action.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kita, S. 2003. Pointing. Where Language, Culture and Cognition Meet. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Interaction 45 (4): 399–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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
Litt, E. 2012. “Knock, Knock. Who’s there? The Imagined Audience.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 56 (3): 330–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luff, P., C. Heath, H. Kuzuoka, J. Hindmarsh, K. Yamazaki, and S. Oyama. 2003. “Fractured Ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration.” In Human Computer Interaction, 51–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L. 2011. “Understanding as an Embodied, Situated and Sequential Achievement in Interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2): 542–552. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. “Embodied and Spatial Resources for Turn-Taking in Institutional Multi-Party Interactions: Participatory Democracy Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 46 (1): 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, H. 2009. Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Oviatt, S. 1999. “Ten Myths of Multimodal Interaction.” Communications of the ACM 42 (11): 74–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 1984. “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action, ed. by J. M. Atkinson, and J. Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. 2003. “Grammar and Social Organization: Yes/No Interrogatives and the Structure of Responding.” American Sociological Review 939–967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Robles, E., J. Raclaw, and S. M. DiDomenico. 2016. “Mobile Phones as an Interactional Resource in Assessment Activities.” (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Rosenbaun, L., S. Rafaeli, and D. Kurzon. 2016a. “Participation Frameworks in Multiparty Video Chats: Cross-Modal Exchanges in Public Google Hangouts.” Journal of Pragmatics 941: 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. “Blurring the Boundaries Between Domestic and Digital Spheres: Competing Engagements in Public Google Hangouts.” Pragmatics 26(2):291–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on conversation, ed. by G. Jefferson. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Watson, R. 1997. “Some General Reflections on ‘Categorization’ and ‘Sequence’ in the Analysis of Conversation.” In Culture in Action. Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, ed. by S. Hester, and P. Eglin, 49–75. Washington: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Google Scholar
Weilenmann, A., and C. Larsson. 2001. “ Local Use and Sharing of Mobile Phones .” In Wireless World: Social and Interactional Aspects of the Mobile Age, ed. by B. Brown, N. Green, and R. Harper, 92–107. London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Nguyen, Hanh thi, Ann Tai Choe & Cristiane Vicentini
2022. Opportunities for second language learning in online search sequences during a computer-mediated tutoring session. Classroom Discourse 13:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Cserző, Dorottya
2021. Discourses and practices of attention in video chat. Multimodal Communication 10:2 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Siitonen, Pauliina, Mirka Rauniomaa & Tiina Keisanen
2021. Language and the Moving Body: Directive Actions With the Finnish kato “look” in Nature-Related Activities. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Gerhardt, Cornelia
2019. ‘Showing’ as a Means of Engaging a Reluctant Participant into a Joint Activity. In Embodied Activities in Face-to-face and Mediated Settings, ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Piccoli, Vanessa, Anna Claudia Ticca & Véronique Traverso
2019. « Go Internet it’s here » : démarches administratives de personnes précaires ou en demande d’asile. Langage et société N° 167:2 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Shaw, Sara E, Deborah Cameron, Joseph Wherton, Lucas M Seuren, Shanti Vijayaraghavan, Satyajit Bhattacharya, Christine A’Court, Joanne Morris & Trisha Greenhalgh
2018. Technology-Enhanced Consultations in Diabetes, Cancer, and Heart Failure: Protocol for the Qualitative Analysis of Remote Consultations (QuARC) Project. JMIR Research Protocols 7:7 ► pp. e10913 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.