Reporting Mobile Device-Mediated Text to Manage Action and Agency in Co-Present Conversation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v6i1.137382Keywords:
conversation analysis, mobiles, informings, updating, reported speech, agency, affordancesAbstract
The paper considers the role of agency in human interaction with mobile devices. We use multimodal conversation analysis to trace how mobile screen content is reproduced as locally relevant for updating information for co-present interlocutors. While informing-centered actions supported by mobile devices may sometimes have the character of an agentic intrusion into the local interaction, we show that the organization of device-accessed information and its meaningfulness is nonetheless positioned in relation to how device-supported updates are animated into social action by human participants. This research contributes to understanding how device-related content is sequentially incorporated into face-to-face interaction.
References
Abeele, M. M. V., Hendrickson, A. T., Pollmann, M. M., & Ling, R. (2019). Phubbing behavior in conversations and its relation to perceived conversation intimacy and distraction: An exploratory observation study. Computers in Human Behavior, 100, 35-47.
Aronsson, K., & Cekaite, A. (2011). Activity contracts and directives in everyday family politics. Discourse & Society, 22(2), 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510392124
Arminen, I. (2010). New reasons for mobile communication: Intensification of time-space geography in the mobile era. In Ling, R., & Campbell, S.W. (Eds.), The Reconstruction of space and time: Mobile communication practices (pp. 89–107). Transaction Publishers.
Asmuß, B., & Oshima, S. (2012). Negotiation of entitlement in proposal sequences. Discourse Studies, 14(1), 67-86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611427215
Beach, W. A. (2001). Stability and ambiguity: Managing uncertain moments when updating news about mom's cancer. Text & Talk, 21(1-2), 221-250. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.21.1-2.221
Beck, J. (2016, June 14). Ignoring people for phones is the new normal: A study looks at how phone snubbing—“phubbing”—becomes socially acceptable. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/ignoring-people-for-phones-isthe-new-normal-phubbing-study/486845/
Beňuš, Š., Gravano, A., & Hirschberg, J. (2011). Pragmatic aspects of temporal accommodation in turn-taking. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(12), 3001-3027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.011
Boyd, d. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), Networked self: Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39–58). Routledge.
Brown, B., O'hara, K., McGregor, M., & Mcmillan, D. (2018). Text in talk: Lightweight messages in co-present interaction. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 24(6), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152419
Buchstaller, I. (2009). The quantitative analysis of morphosyntactic variation: Constructing and quantifying the denominator. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(3), 1010-1033. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00142.x
Deppermann, A., & Streeck, J. (2018). The body in interaction. In A. Deppermann & J. Streeck (Eds.), Time in Embodied Interaction: Synchronicity and sequentiality of multimodal resources (pp. 1-29). John Benjamins.
deSouza, D. K. (2021). Everyday updates: How parents ask about their young children’s lived experiences. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(4), 1172-1193.
De Stefani, E., & Mondada, L. (2018). Encounters in public space: How acquainted versus unacquainted persons establish social and spatial arrangements. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1485230
DiDomenico, S. (2015). Help seeking in action: Managing interaction and mental health on a crisis helpline. Dissertation. Rutgers University.
DiDomenico, S. & Boase, J. (2013). Bringing mobiles into the conversation: Applying a conversation analytic approach to the study of mobile phones in co-present interaction. In D. Tannen & A. Trester (Eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media (pp. 119 – 132). Georgetown University Press.
DiDomenico, S. M., Raclaw, J., & Robles, J. S. (2020). Attending to the mobile text summons: Managing multiple communicative activities across physically co-present and technologically mediated interpersonal interactions. Communication Research, 47(5), 669-700.
Ekberg, S. (2011). Making arrangements: Remote proposal sequences and attendant structural phenomena in social interaction (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Adelaide).
Enfield, N. J. (2013). Relationship thinking: Agency, enchrony, and human sociality. Oxford University Press.
Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35-52.https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
Fox, B. A., & Robles, J. (2010). It’s like mmm: Enactments with it’s like. Discourse Studies, 12(6), 715-738. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445610381862
Gardner, R., & Mushin, I. (2013). Teachers telling: Informings in an early years classroom. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(2), 63.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw, & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67-82). Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Erlbaum.
Günthner, S. (1999). Polyphony and the ‘layering of voices’ in reported dialogues: An analysis of the use of prosodic devices in everyday reported speech. Journal of pragmatics, 31(5), 685-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00093-9
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). Participation, affect, and trajectory in family directive/response sequences. Text & Talk—An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 26(4–5), 515–543. doi:10.1515/ TEXT.2006.021
Hampton, K. N. (2016). Persistent and pervasive community: New communication technologies and the future of community. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 101-124.
Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2020). All the lonely people? The continuing lament about the loss of community. In L. Lievrouw & B. Loader (Eds.), Handbook of digital media and communication (pp. 281-296). Routledge.
Heritage, J. (1984). A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Heritage, J., & Atkinson, J. M. (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in Conversation Analysis (pp. 299-345). Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (2012). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 45(1), 1-29.
Hermann, A. & Steinbach, M. (2012). Quotation in Sign Languages: A Visible Context Shift. In I, Van Alphen, & I. Buchstaller (Eds.), Quotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 203-228). John Benjamins.
Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 29(3), 219–245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2903_2
Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038501000219
Ito, M., Okabe, D., & Matsuda, M. (2005). Personal, portable, pedestrian: Mobile phones in Japanese life. Boston Review.
Jefferson, G. (1984) Transcription Notation. In J. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Interaction (pp. ix-xvi). Cambridge University Press.
Katz, J.E., Halpern, D., & Crocker, T. (2015). In the company of robots: Views of acceptability of robots in social settings, in Social Robots from a Human Perspective, Springer International Publishing, pp. 25–38.
Krummheuer, A. (2015). Technical Agency in Practice: The enactment of artifacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents. PsychNology Journal, 13(2).
Licoppe, C. (2020). Mobile phones in action. The Oxford Handbook of Mobile Communication and Society, 95.
Ling, R. (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. MIT press.
Ling, R. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society. MIT press.
Mantere, E. (2022a). Smartphone Moves: How Changes in Embodied Configuration with One’s Smartphone Adjust Conversational Engagement. Social Sciences, 11(5), 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11050219
Mantere, E. (2022b). Smartphone Situation: Personal Smartphone Use During Face-To-Face Encounters. Dissertation. Tampere University, Finland
Mays, K. K. (2021). Humanizing robots? The influence of appearance and status on social perceptions of robots. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
Meisner, C., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2022). Participatory branding on social media: The affordances of live streaming for creative labor. New Media & Society, 24(5), 1179-1195. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461444820972392
Mondada, L. (2018). Multiple Temporalities of Language and Body in Interaction: Challenges for Transcribing Multimodality. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413878
Mondada, L. (2022). Multimodal transcription. https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription.
Mortensen, K. (2013). “Writing Aloud: Some Interactional Functions of the Public Display of Emergent Writing.” In Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference, edited by H. Melkas and J. Buur, 119–125. PIN-C, Lahti, Finland.
Nagy, P., & Neff, G. (2015). Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2056305115603385
Oloff, F. (2021). 'Show' imperatives in smartphone-based showing sequences in Czech and German, Gesprächsforschung - Online-Zeitschrift zur verbalen Interaktion, vol. 2021, no. 22, pp. 691-724.
Oloff, F. (2021). New technologies – new social conduct? A sequential and multimodal approach to smartphone use in face-to-face interaction, Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée, vol. 1, no. Special, pp. 13-34
Porcheron, M., Fischer, J. E., & Sharples, S. (2016). Using Mobiles Phones in Pub Talk. 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW ’16). https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2820014
Raclaw, J., Robles, J. S., & DiDomencio, S. M. (2016). Providing Epistemic Support for Assessments Through Mobile-Supported Sharing Activities. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 49(4), 362-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2016.1199089
Robles, J. S., DiDomenico, S.M., & Raclaw, J. (2021). Using objects and technologies in the immediate environment as resources for managing affect displays in troubles talk. In J.S. Robles & A. Weatherall (Eds.), How emotions are made in talk (pp. 101 – 128). John Benjamins Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
Searles, D. (2019). Positioning updates as relevant: An analysis of child-initiated updating in American and Canadian families. Research on Children and Social Interaction, 3(1-2), 144-167.
Seuren, L. M., & Huiskes, M. (2017). Confirmation or elaboration: What do yes/no declaratives want?. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 50(2), 188-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1301307
Shrock, A. R. (2015). Communicative Affordances of Mobile Media: Portability, Availability, Locatability, and Multimediality. International Journal of Communication, 9, 1229-1246.
Terasaki, A. K. (2004). Pre-announcement sequences in conversation. In Lerner, G. H. (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 171-223). John Benjamins.
Terraschke, A. (2013). A classification system for describing quotative content. Journal of pragmatics, 47(1), 59-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.015
Turkle, S. (2012). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books.
Turkle, S. (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. Penguin.
Unuabonah, F. O. (2018). Direct quotations in Nigerian investigative public hearings. Text & Talk, 38(4), 503-524. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0012
Yao, B., & Scheepers, C. (2011). Contextual modulation of reading rate for direct versus indirect speech quotations. Cognition, 121(3), 447-453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.007
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Author and Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We follow the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of Open Access.
The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright without restrictions.
The journal allows software/spiders to automatically crawl the journal content (also known as text mining)
The journal provides article level metadata to DOAJ
The journal allows readers to read, download, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of its articles and allow readers to use them for any other lawful purpose.
