Advertisement

“Of course I’m married!” Communicative Strategies and Transcription-Related Issues in Video-Mediated Interactions

  • Maria Grazia SindoniEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

In multimodal approaches to communication, transcription and annotation have proved essential to address research questions focused on the study of video data, even though multimodal transcriptions are usually very thick and complex. However, even though the transcription of an excerpt of such data is extremely time consuming, this practice is crucial to explore how resources work concurrently and how they are orchestrated to make meanings. The production of meaning is a typical concern for multimodal studies and can be specifically addressed by unpacking the several resources that come into play in interaction: transcription is a way to respond to such concerns. In this chapter, video data plus transcriptions and comments developed by students participating in a research project will be analysed and discussed to show how transcription of video-mediated interactions in educational contexts can be useful to unveil students’ ideologies in language representations, for example prioritizing written over spoken language.

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my friends and colleagues Elisabetta Adami, Ilaria Moschini and Sandra Petroni . I am also grateful to Dr Laura Rosenbaun for her insightful comments on the manuscript. Many thanks go to all MoM participants who granted their permission to study, reproduce and publish all the video and written materials developed during the project. Without their permission and contributions this study would not have been possible.

References

  1. Androutsopoulos, J. (2006). Introduction: Sociolinguistics and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10(4), 419–438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00286.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse. In C. Thurlow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 277–298). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Antaki, C., Ardévol, E., Núñez, F., & Vayreda, A. (2005). “For she who knows who she is:” Managing accountability in online forum messages. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2006.tb00306.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bezemer, J., & Jewitt, C. (2010). Multimodal analysis: Key issues. In L. Litosseliti (Ed.), Research methods in linguistics (pp. 180–197). London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  5. Bloor, M. (2016). The construal of terminal illness in online medical texts: Social distance and semantic space. In S. Gardner & S. Alsop (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age (pp. 120–133). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  6. Bou-Franch, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2012). Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 17, 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creese, A. (2008). Linguistic ethnography. In K. A. King & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education, Research methods in language and education (Vol. 10, 2nd ed., pp. 229–241). New York: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
  8. Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danet, B. (2001). Cyberpl@y: Communicating online. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  10. Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  12. Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and social theory: Ecologies of speaking and listening in everyday life. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  13. Everts, E. (2004). Modalities of turn-taking in blind/sighted interaction: Better to be seen and not heard? In P. LeVine & R. Scollon (Eds.), Discourse and technology: Multimodal discourse analysis (pp. 128–145). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Flewitt, R., Hampel, R., Hauck, M., & Lancaster, L. (2009). What are multimodal data and transcription? In C. Jewitt (Ed.), The handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 40–53). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Flinkfeldt, M. (2011). ‘Filling one’s days’: Managing sick leave legitimacy in an online forum. Sociology Health Illness, 33(5), 761–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01330.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flinkfeldt, M. (2014). Making equality relevant: Gender, housework, and sick leave legitimacy in online interaction. Female Psychology, 24(3), 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353513515295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gardner, S., & Alsop, S. (Eds.). (2016). Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  18. Georgakopoulou, A. (2011). Computer-mediated communication. In J. Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics in practice (pp. 93–110). Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  20. Goldin-Meadow, S. (1999). The development of gesture with and without speech in hearing and deaf children. In L. S. Messing & R. Campbell (Eds.), Gesture, speech and sign (pp. 117–132). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodwin, C. (1980). Restart, pauses, and the achievement of mutual gaze at turn-beginning. Sociological Inquiry, 50(3–4), 272–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gumperz, J. J. (1999). On interactional sociolinguistic method. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.), Talk, work and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management setting (pp. 453–472). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, E. T., & Hall, R. M. (1990). Understanding cultural differences. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.Google Scholar
  26. Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  27. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  28. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Media space and communicative asymmetries: Preliminary observations of video-mediated interaction. Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 7(3), 315–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heller, M. (1988). Code-switching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Herring, S. C. (2004a). Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. H. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338–376). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Herring, S. C. (2004b). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Herring, S. C. (2011). Computer-mediated conversation part II: Introduction and overview. Language@Internet, 8(2). Retrieved from http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2011/Herring
  34. Herring, S. C. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. In D. Tannen & A. M. Trester (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguistics 2011: Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp. 1–25). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Herring, S., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T. (2013). Pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hutchby, I. (2001). Conversation and technology: From the telephone to the internet. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, A., Lang, M., Fyffe, G., Yu, X., Busch, J., Bolas, M., et al. (2009). Achieving eye-contact in a one-to-many 3D video teleconferencing system. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 28(3), Paper 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karagevreki, M. (2016). Analysis of an online university lecture: Multimodal perspectives. In S. Gardner & S. Alsop (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age (pp. 166–183). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  39. Kendon, A. (1967). Some functions of gaze-direction in social interaction. Acta Psychologica, 26, 22–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction. Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  42. Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. ([1996] 2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2014). Mundane video directors in interaction: Showing one’s environment in Skype and mobile video calls. In Studies of video practices: Video at work (pp. 135–160). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The meaning of meaning (pp. 296–336). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Miller, D. (2016). On negotiating the hurdles of corpus-assisted appraisal analysis in verbal art. In S. Gardner & S. Alsop (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age (pp. 211–228). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  47. Myers, G. (2010). Stance-taking and public discussion in blogs. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction. A methodological framework. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Toole, M. ([1994] 2011). The language of displayed art (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Papagiannouli, C. (2011). Cyberformance and the cyberstage. The International Journal of the Arts in Society, 6(4), 273–282.Google Scholar
  51. Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosenbaun, L., Rafaeli, S., & Kurzon, D. (2016a). Blurring the boundaries between domestic and digital spheres: Competing engagements in public Google Hangouts. Pragmatics, 26(2), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosenbaun, L., Rafaeli, S., & Kurzon, D. (2016b). Participation frameworks in multiparty video chats cross-modal exchanges in public Google Hangouts. Journal of Pragmatics, 94(2016), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  55. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scollon, R. (2002). Mediated discourse: The nexus of practice. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sindoni, M. G. (2011). Online conversations: A sociolinguistic investigation into young adults’ use of video chats. Classroom Discourse, 2, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sindoni, M. G. (2012a). Speech and writing in English: A cultural and linguistic debate. Firenze: Le Lettere.Google Scholar
  60. Sindoni, M. G. (2012b). Mode-switching: How oral and written modes alternate in video chats. In M. Cambria, C. Arizzi, & F. Coccetta (Eds.), Web genres and web tools: With contributions from the Living Knowledge Project (pp. 141–153). Como & Pavia: Ibis.Google Scholar
  61. Sindoni, M. G. (2013). Spoken and written discourse in online interactions: A multimodal approach. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Sindoni, M. G. (2014a). Through the looking glass: A social semiotic and linguistic perspective on the study of video chats. Text & Talk, 34, 325–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sindoni, M. G. (2014b). Addressing cultural and linguistic diversity in multi-party video interaction: A multimodal conversation analysis approach. Paper presented at Languaging Diversity 2014, Università di Catania, 9–11 October 2014.Google Scholar
  64. Sindoni, M. G. (2016). “There’s power in stories”: A multimodal and corpus-based functional analysis of fandom blogs. In S. Gardner & S. Alsop (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age (pp. 1–26). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  65. Sneijder, P., & te Molder, H. F. M. (2004). ‘Health should not have to be a problem’: Talking health and accountability in an internet forum on veganism. Journal of Health and Psychology, 9(4), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105304044046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sneijder, P., & te Molder, H. F. M. (2005). Moral logic and logical morality: Attributions of responsibility and blame in online discourse on veganism. Discourse Society, 16(5), 675–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505054941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Swan, P. K., Richardson, J. C., Ice, P., Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2008). Validating a measurement tool of presence in online communities of inquiry. E-Mentor, 2(24), 1–12.Google Scholar
  68. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(10), 60–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Thibault, P. J. (2000). Multimodal transcription of a television advertisement: Theory and practice. In A. Baldry (Ed.), Multimodality and multimediality in the distance learning age (pp. 311–385). Campobasso: Palladino.Google Scholar
  71. Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (Eds.). (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. van Leeuwen, T. (1999). Speech, music, sound. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  74. Vertegaal, R., & Ding, Y. (2002). Explaining effects of eye gaze on mediated group conversations: Amount or synchronization? In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 41–48.Google Scholar
  75. Yang, R., & Zhang, Z. (2001). Eye gaze correction with stereovision for video-teleconferencing. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Computer Vision – Proceedings, 2, May 27–June 2, Copenhagen, Denmark, 479–474.Google Scholar
  76. Yus, F. (2011). Cyberpragmatics: Internet-mediated communication in context. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department Civiltà Antiche e ModerneUniversity of MessinaMessinaItaly

Personalised recommendations