Discourses and practices of attention in video chat
-
Dorottya Cserző
Abstract
This paper examines the use of video chat (VC) with a focus on expectations and construction of attention. It is based on micro analyses of recorded VC sessions (gathered between 2013 and 2015) and thematic analysis of 29 semi-structured interviews about VC practices (conducted in 2014 and 2015). Building on multimodal (inter)action analysis (Norris, S. (2004). Analysing multimodal interaction: a methdological framework. Routledge, Norris, S. (2016). Concepts in multimodal discourse analysis with examples from video conferencing. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 2: 141–165) and key concepts from nexus analysis (Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. Routledge), I examine how focused attention is constructed in VCs and how these practices are shaped by experiences with other forms of communication. I demonstrate that unlike other forms of distance communication, typical VC encounters require a full investment of attention. This can be formulated as an interactional maxim: focus your attention on the VC interaction. I discuss how other activities can be interwoven with a VC and examine the exceptional practice of lapsed VC encounters (previously open connections or always-on video). I argue that participants display an orientation towards the maxim when pursuing other courses of action, and that lapsed encounters operate under a different value system than typical focused VC encounters. Finally, I reason that VC is reserved for close relationships because of the required investment of attention.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. I also want to thank my generous mentors and colleagues who have given me feedback on earlier drafts: Virpi Ylänne, Jaspal Singh, and Ruth Page. Any remaining inadequacies are my own. This research would not have been possible without financial support from The Sidney Perry Foundation, The Gen Foundation, The Sir Richard Stapley Educational Trust, The Humanitarian Trust, and The Allan and Nesta Ferguson Charitable Trust and the time and trust of my participants.
Appendix: Participant descriptions
Mark is a 22 year old undergraduate student from the UK. He described his use of VC as ‘infrequent’, about once every 3 months. There was a 5 month period when he was travelling overseas and used VC about twice a month. He first tried VC at around the age of 14. He uses VC primarily with friends and occasionally family.
Gemma is a 21 year old undergraduate student from the UK. She uses VC about 3–4 times a week. She started using VC when she moved away from home for her university course. She uses VC to keep in touch with her mum, her sisters, and her boyfriend.
April is a 27 year old postgraduate student from Germany. She uses VC at least 5 times a week, often daily. She has been using VC for 7 years. She keeps in touch with her friends, family, and her boyfriend through VC (among many other forms of communication). She also uses videoconferencing for work purposes.
Camille is a 30 year old undergraduate student from the UK. In addition to her studies, she also works in the hospitality industry part-time. She uses VC every week and has first used VC about 3 years ago. She talks primarily with her new boyfriend, who lives in another city, and some friends who live far away.
Bryn is a 31 year old postgraduate student from the UK. He provided three recordings of his VC sessions with his boyfriend and participated as an interviewee. Bryn first used VC 5 years before the interview, and was initially using it about every 6 weeks for work purposes. This changed when he got a new job in a different city and he started using VC with his boyfriend every day when they were apart. The recordings were made during this period, but by the time I interviewed him they were living together again and Bryn reverted to using videoconferencing for work as required.
Sian provided a video recording but she was not interviewed. The VC was recorded as part of the coursework for an undergraduate module on Digital Literacies. Students were asked to conduct two interviews: one via VC and one via IM. They summarised the responses and reflected on the differences between the two experiences. Recordings were compulsory for the module, and students could opt in to share the recordings for research purposes. Sian interviewed her friend Tracy who lives in a different city. In addition to answering Sian’s interview questions they also discussed personal matters and made plans for future events.
References
Ames, M.G., Go, J., Kaye, J., and Spasojevic, M. (2010). Making love in the network closet: the benefits and work of family videochat. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’10, May 2014, p. 145.10.1145/1718918.1718946Search in Google Scholar
Baron, N.S. (2008). Controlling the volume: everyone a language czar. In: Always on: language in an online and mobile world. Open University Press, London, pp. 31–44.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.003.0003Search in Google Scholar
Bernal, M. (2008). Do insults always insult? Genuine Impoliteness versus non-genuine Impoliteness in colloquial Spanish. Pragmatics 18: 781–802, https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.4.10ber.Search in Google Scholar
Cserző, D. (2016). Nexus analysis meets scales: an exploration of sites of engagement in videochat interviews. In: Singh, J.N., Kantara, A., and Cserző, D. (Eds.). Downscaling culture: revisiting intercultural communication. Cambridge Scholars, Cambridge, pp. 337–365.Search in Google Scholar
Cserző, D. (2020). Intimacy at a distance: multimodal meaning making in video chat tours. In: Thurlow, C., Dürscheid, C., and Diémoz, F. (Eds.). Visualizing digital discourse: interactional, institutional and ideological perspectives. Mouton DeGruyter, Berlin, pp. 151–169.10.1515/9781501510113-008Search in Google Scholar
de Fornel, M., and Libbrecht, L. (1996). The interactional frame of videophonic exchange. Réseaux. The French Journal of Communication 4: 47–72, https://doi.org/10.3406/reso.1996.3305.Search in Google Scholar
Develotte, C., Guichon, N., and Vincent, C. (2010). The use of the webcam for teaching a foreign language in a desktop videoconferencing environment. ReCALL 22: 293–312, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0958344010000170.Search in Google Scholar
Fish, R.S., Kraut, R.E., Root, R.W., and Rice, R.E. (1993). Video as a technology for informal communication. Commun. ACM 36: 48–61, https://doi.org/10.1145/151233.151237.Search in Google Scholar
Geenen, J. (2017). Show and (sometimes) tell: identity construction and the affordances of video-conferencing. Multimodal Communication 6: 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2017-0002.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbs, G. (2007). Flick, U. (Ed.), Analysing qualitative data. SAGE, London.10.4135/9781849208574Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places: notes on the social organization of gatherings (First edit). The Free Press, New York.Search in Google Scholar
Goldhaber, M.H. (1997). The attention economy and the Net. First Monday 2, Available at: http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/519/440 (Accessed 18 May 2012).10.5210/fm.v2i4.519Search in Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1989). Logic and conversation. In: Studies in the way of word. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 22–40.Search in Google Scholar
Heath, C.C., and Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology. Cscw 1: 69–94, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00752451.Search in Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology 35: 441–456, https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038501000219.Search in Google Scholar
Jaworski, A. (2000). Silence and small talk. In: Coupland, J. (Ed.), Small group research. Longman, Harlow, pp. 110–132.10.4324/9781315838328-6Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, M. (2020). The reason zoom calls drain your energy. BBC Worklife, Available at: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200421-why-zoom-video-chats-are-so-exhausting.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, R.H. (2004). The problem of context in computer mediated communication. In: LeVine, P., and Scollon, R. (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis. Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 20–33.Search in Google Scholar
Jones, R.H. (2005). Sites of engagement as sites of attention: time, space, and culture in electronic discourse. In: Norris, S., and Jones, R.H. (Eds.), Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London and New York, pp. 141–154.10.4324/9780203018767-27Search in Google Scholar
Jones, R.H. (2010). Cyberspace and physical space: attention structures in computer mediated communication. In: Jaworski, A., and Thurlow, C. (Eds.), Semiotic landscapes: language, image, space. Continuum, London and New York, pp. 151–167.Search in Google Scholar
Kirk, D.S., Sellen, A., and Cao, X. (2010). Home video communication: mediating “closeness. Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’10, pp. 135–145.10.1145/1718918.1718945Search in Google Scholar
Licoppe, C. (2017). Skype appearances, multiple greetings and ‘coucou’. The sequential organization of video-mediated conversation openings. Pragmatics 27: 351–386, https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.3.03lic.Search in Google Scholar
Licoppe, C., and Morel, J. (2012). Video-in-Interaction: “talking heads” and the multimodal organization of mobile and skype video calls. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 45: 399–429, https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.724996.Search in Google Scholar
Longhurst, R. (2013). Using skype to mother: bodies, emotions, visuality, and screens. Environ. Plann. Soc. Space 31: 664–679, https://doi.org/10.1068/d20111.Search in Google Scholar
Longhurst, R. (2017). Skype: bodies, screens, space. Routledge, London and New York.10.4324/9781315609294Search in Google Scholar
Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching, 2nd ed Sage Publications, London.Search in Google Scholar
Miller, D., and Sinanan, J. (2014). Webcam. Polity Press, Cambridge.Search in Google Scholar
Nellis, S. and Menn, J. (2020). Demand for video calling continues to surge, Microsoft and others say. Reuters, Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-software/demand-for-video-calling-continues-to-surge-microsoft-and-others-say-idUSKCN21R20P.Search in Google Scholar
Neustaedter, C., Pang, C., Forghani, A., Oduor, E., Hillman, S., Judge, T.K., Massimi, M., and Greenberg, S. (2015). Sharing domestic life through long-term video connections. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 22: 1–29, https://doi.org/10.1145/2696869.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction: a methdological framework. Routledge.10.4324/9780203379493Search in Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2016). Concepts in multimodal discourse analysis with examples from video conferencing. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting 2: 141–165, https://doi.org/10.1515/yplm-2016-0007.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2019). Focused attention in focus: crossing micro-analytical boundaries. In: Gnosa, T., and Kallass, K. (Eds.). Grenzgänge. Digitale Festschrift für Wolf-Andreas Liebert, Issue July, pp. 1–13.Search in Google Scholar
Norris, S., and Jones, R.H. (Eds.) (2005). Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London and New York.10.4324/9780203018767Search in Google Scholar
Norris, S., and Pirini, J. (2017). Communicating knowledge, getting attention, and negotiating disagreement via videoconferencing technology: a multimodal analysis. Journal of Organizational Knowledge Communication 3: 23, https://doi.org/10.7146/jookc.v3i1.23876.Search in Google Scholar
O’Hara, K., Black, A., and Lipson, M. (2006). Everyday practices with mobile video telephony. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 871–880.10.1145/1124772.1124900Search in Google Scholar
Pirini, J. (2016). Producing shared attention/awareness in high school tutoring. Multimodal Communication 3, https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2014-0012.Search in Google Scholar
Rettie, R. (2007). Texters not talkers: phone call aversion among mobile phone users. PsychNol. J. 5: 33–57.Search in Google Scholar
Rettie, R. (2009). Mobile phone communication: extending Goffman to mediated interaction. Sociology 43: 421–438, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103197.Search in Google Scholar
Rintel, S. (2013). Video calling in long-distance Relationships : the opportunistic use of audio/video distortions as a relational resource. Electron. J. Commun. 23.Search in Google Scholar
Rosenbaun, L., and Licoppe, C. (2017). Showing ‘digital’ objects in web-based video chats as a collaborative achievement. Pragmatics 27: 419–446, https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.27.3.05ros.Search in Google Scholar
Rosenbaun, L., Rafaeli, S., and Kurzon, D. (2016). Blurring the boundaries between domestic and digital spheres: competing engagements in public Google hangouts. Pragmatics 26: 291–314, https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.2.05ros.Search in Google Scholar
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: the nexus of practice. Routledge, London and New York.10.4324/9780203420065Search in Google Scholar
Scollon, R., and Scollon, S.W. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. Routledge, London and New York.10.4324/9780203422724Search in Google Scholar
Scollon, R., and Scollon, S.W. (2004). Nexus Analysis: Discourse and the emerging internet. Routledge, London and New York.10.4324/9780203694343Search in Google Scholar
Stefani, E. De, and Horlacher, A.-S. (2017). Mundane talk at work : multiactivity in interactions between professionals and their clientele. Discourse Stud. 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734935.Search in Google Scholar
The British Association for Applied Linguistics (2016). Recommendations on good practice in applied Linguistics, Available at: https://www.baal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/goodpractice_full_2016.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Artistic imagery in advertising: experiencing advertisements through art
- Visual metaphtonymy in automobile femvertising
- How to have fun with sticks, bowls, and colored water: insights into multimodal signifier operations through Lacan’s four discourses
- Discourses and practices of attention in video chat
- The influence of multimodal textualization in the conversion of semiotic representations in Italian primary school geometry textbooks
- Interactional means of teaming up: enacting the features of contemporary working life in a theater performance
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Artistic imagery in advertising: experiencing advertisements through art
- Visual metaphtonymy in automobile femvertising
- How to have fun with sticks, bowls, and colored water: insights into multimodal signifier operations through Lacan’s four discourses
- Discourses and practices of attention in video chat
- The influence of multimodal textualization in the conversion of semiotic representations in Italian primary school geometry textbooks
- Interactional means of teaming up: enacting the features of contemporary working life in a theater performance
