Noticing-prefaced recoveries of the interactional space in a video-mediated business meeting

  • Tuire Oittinen University of Jyväskylä
Keywords: noticings, interactional space, embodies resources, video.mediated meetings, multimodality, conversation analysis

Abstract

Drawing on conversation analysis and authentic data from a video-mediated multiparty meeting, this study investigates the sequential and temporal organisation of recoveries of the interactional space. It focuses on moments in which either an auditory or a visual barrier emerges, and the participants orient to these troubles through intensified bodily-visual displays: embodied noticings. The analysis illustrates noticing-prefaced recoveries of the interactional space as procedural and multimodal accomplishments that require close attentiveness to the co-participants’ verbal and visual conduct and to the contingencies of the meeting. The study highlights not only the affordances of video-mediated settings, but also the consequences that asymmetric access to the distributed environments can have for the organization of actions.

References

Arminen, I., & Auvinen, P. (2016). Environmentally coupled repairs and remedies in the airline cockpit: Repair practices of talk and action in interaction. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 19–41.

Ford, C., & Stickle T. (2012). Securing recipiency in workplace meetings. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 11–30.

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32(10), 1489–1522.

Goodwin, M.H., & Goodwin, C. (2012). Car talk: integrating texts, bodies, and changing landscapes. Semiotica, 191-1/4, 257–286.

Haddington, P., Keisanen, T., Mondada, L., & Nevile, M. (Eds.). (2014). Multiactivity in social interaction. Beyond multitasking. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Halvorsen, K. (2016). Participation across distance: Claiming the floor in multiple location video meetings. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 10(1), 45–67.

Hazel, S., Mortensen, K., & Rasmussen G. (2014). Introduction: A body of resources – CA studies of social conduct. Journal of Pragmatics, 65 (1), 1–9.

Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Media Space and Communicative Asymmetries: Preliminary Observations of Video-Mediated Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 315-346.

Heath, C., & Luff P. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Helisten, M. (2019). Disjunctively positioned problem-noticings in managing multiactivity. Research on Language and Social Interaction, DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2019.1657274

Heritage, J. (1984). Change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J.M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–344). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (1999). Embodied Reference: A Study of Deixis in Workplace Interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1855–1878.

Hjulstad, J. (2016). Practices of Organizing Built Space in Videoconference-mediated Interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(4), 491–498.

Jefferson, Gail (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 13–31.

Kaukomaa, T., Peräkylä, A. & Ruusuvuori, J. (2014). Foreshadowing a problem: Turn-opening frowns in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 71, 132–147.

Keisanen, T. (2012). “Uh-oh, we were going there”: Environmentally occasioned noticings of trouble in in-car interaction. Semiotica, 191-1/4, 192–222.

Kääntä, L. (2014). From noticing to initiating correction: Students’ epistemic displays in instructional interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 66, 86–105.

Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Hindmarsh, J., Yamazaki, K., & Oyama. S. (2003). Fractured ecologies: Creating Environments for Collaboration. Human-Computer Interaction, 51–84.

Luff, P., Patel, M., Kuzuoka, H., & Heath, C. (2014). Assembling collaboration: Informing the Design of Interaction Spaces. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3), 317–329.

Mlynář, J., González-Martínez, E., & Lalanne, D. (2018). Situated Organization of Video-Mediated Interaction: A Review of Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Studies. Interacting with Computers, 30(2), 73–84.

Mondada, L., (2016[2001]). Conventions for multimodal transcription. https://franz.unibas.ch/fileadmin/franz/user_upload/redaktion/Mondada_conv_multimodality.

Mondada, L. (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics 41(10), 1977–1997.

Mondada, L. (2011). The interactional production of multiple spatialities within a participatory democracy meeting. Discourse Studies, 9(2), 194–225.

Mondada, L. (2013). Interactional space and the study of embodied talk-in-interaction. In P. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter, 247–275.

Nielsen, M.F. (2012). Using artifacts in brainstorming sessions to secure participation and decouple sequentiality. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 87–109.

Norris, J., & Luff, P. (2013). Putting things in Focus: Establishing Co-Orientation Through Video in Context, CHI 2013. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Human Interaction, Paris, France.

O’Hara, K., Kjeldskov, J., & Paay, J. (2011). Blended Interaction Spaces for Distributed Team Collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 18(1).

Oittinen, T. (2018). Multimodal accomplishment of alignment and affiliation in the local space of distant meetings. Culture and Organization, 24(1), 31–63.

Oittinen, T. (2020). Coordinating actions in and across interactional spaces in technology-mediated business meetings. Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities 225. Doctoral dissertation. University of Jyväskylä.

Olbertz-Siitonen, M. (2015). Transmission delay in technology-mediated interaction at work. PsychNology Journal 13(2-3), 203–234.

Oloff, F. (2018). “Sorry?/”Como”/Was” – Open class and embodied repair initiators in international workplace interactions. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 29–51.

Rauniomaa, M., Lehtonen, E., & Summala, H. (2018). Noticings with instructional implications in post-license driver training. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 326–356.

Rintel, S. (2013). Tech-Tied or Tongue-Tied? Technological Versus Social Trouble in Relational Video Calling. 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3343-3352.

Ruhleder, K., & Jordan, B. (2001a). Co-constructing non-mutual realities: Delay-Generated trouble in distributed interaction. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 10, 113–138.

Ruhleder, K., & Jordan, B. (2001b). Managing complex, distributed environments: remote meeting technologies at the ‘chaotic fringe’. First Monday, 6, http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/857/766 [06/05/2019].

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

Schegloff, E.A. (2007). Sequence Organization in Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Streeck, J. (2009). Forward-Gesturing, Discourse Processes, 46(2-3), 161–179.

Published
2020-11-13
How to Cite
Oittinen, T. (2020). Noticing-prefaced recoveries of the interactional space in a video-mediated business meeting. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v3i3.122781