Talking without a Voice: Virtual Co-Speakership in an Educational Webinar
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2021-4-198-216Keywords:
video-mediated communication, classroom interaction studies, telepresence, multimodality, conversation analysis, cooperative action, distributed speakership, overlapAbstract
The following paper analyzes the interactional shifts precipitated by the pandemic induced turn to telepresence. Using the framework of multimodal conversation analysis, we analyze a videorecording of a webinar organized by The Psychological Service of Moscow. In this specific case, webinar participants had unequally distributed interactional resources; only one participant was able to speak, while all other participants could only participate through a text-based chat. We focus on a change of the course of action where the instructor's monologic presentation transitions to a question-answer interaction. We highlight the way the single speaker organizes the transition from these structurally dissimilar participation frameworks. A key feature of the move from monologue to question-response is a self-initiated interruption: another participant's diachronic chat message is deployed as a synchronic overlap by orienting to a virtual second speaker. Thus, we document a case where one speaker chooses to give a voice to a voiceless participant. The work contributes to studies of educational interaction by providing insights on the work that goes into the transition between interactional formats in telemediated asymmetrical ecologies. Our work opens up discussions about the interfacing between different modalities as a locally emergent phenomenon, and how new interactional ecologies create a fertile substrate for hitherto unfamiliar forms of talking, embodiment, and local sequential ordering. The work thus also contributes to research that highlights the non-passive role of the 'listener', which is reflected in the active speaker's orientation to the listener's active contribution to ongoing talk.Downloads
References
Clark H. H., Krych M. A. (2004) Speaking while monitoring addressees for understanding. Journal of Memory and Language, 50 (1): 62-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/].jml.2003.08.004
Couper-Kuhlen E. (2004) Prosody and sequence organization in English conversation. E. Couper-Kuhlen & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Typological Studies in Language. Sound Patterns in Interaction (Vol. 62, pp. 335-376). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.62.17cou
Dowling S., Williams V., Webb J., Gall M., Worrall D. (2019) Managing relational autonomy in interactions: People with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32 (5): 1058-1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12595
Drew P. (2009) Quit talking while I'm interrupting: a comparison between positions of overlap onset in conversation. M. Haakana, M. Laakso, & J. Lindstrom (Eds.), Comparative Aspects of Conversation Analysis (pp. 70-93). Finnish Literature Society. Retrieved from https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/chapter/Quit_talk-ing_while_I_m_interrupting_a_comparison_between_positions_of_overlap_on-set_in_conversation/9472022
Favareau D. (Ed.) (2018) Tartu semiootika raamatukogu: Vol. 19. Cooperative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin. Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Ferre G., Renaudier S. (2017, August 15) Unimodal and Bimodal Backchannels in Conversational English. In SEMDIAL 2017 (SaarDial) Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 20-30). ISCA: ISCA. https://doi.org/10.21437/SemDi-al.2017-3
Garfinkel H. (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Goffman E. (1979) Footing. Semiotica, 25(1-2): 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1
Goodwin C. (1981) Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers.New York, London: Academic Press.
Goodwin C. (1995) Co-Constructing Meaning in Conversations With an Aphasic Man. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 28( 3): 233-260. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_4
Goodwin C. (2000) Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (10): 1489-1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
Goodwin C. (2006) Interactive Footing. E. Holt & R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting Talk (pp. 16-46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CB09780511486654.003
Goodwin C. (2018) Cooperative action. Learning in doing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heath C., Hindmarsh J., & Luff P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Los Angeles, London: SAGE.
Jefferson G. (1973) A Case of Precision Timing in Ordinary Conversation: Overlapped Tag-Positioned Address Terms in Closing Sequences. Semiotica, 9 (1). https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.9.1.47
Jefferson G. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. Lerner, G. H. (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. John Benjamins
Klowait N. O. (2019) Interactionism in the age of ubiquitous telecommunication.Information, Communication & Society, 22 (5): 605-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1566487
Klowait N. O., Erofeeva M. A. (2019) Work in the Age of Intelligent Machines: The Rise of Invisible Automation. Philosophical Literary Journal Logos, 29 (1): 53-84. https://doi.org/10.22394/0869-5377-2019-1-53-80
Merlino S. (2018) Co-Constructing Wor(l)ds in Aphasia Speech Therapy. D. Favareau (Ed.), Tartu semiootika raamatukogu: Vol. 19. Cooperative engagements in intertwined semiosis: Essays in honour of Charles Goodwin (pp. 287-303). Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Mlynar J., Gonzalez-Martinez E., Lalanne D. (2018) Situated Organization of VideoMediated Interaction: A Review of Ethnomethodological and Conversation Analytic Studies.Interacting with Computers, 30 (2): 73-84. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwx019
Mondada L. (2016) Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20 (3): 336-366. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl12177 Mondada L. (2019a) Conventions for multimodal transcription. Available at: https://www.lorenzamondada.net/multimodal-transcription
Mondada L. (2019b) Transcribing silent actions: a multimodal approach of sequence organization. Social Interaction. Video-Based Studies of Human Sociality, 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.7146/si.v2i1.113150
Mondada L., Banninger J., Bouaouina S., Gauthier G., Hanggi P., Koda M.
Tekin B. S. (2020) Changing social practices. Covid-19 and new forms of sociality. Etnografia e ricerca qualitativa. (2): 217-232. https://doi.org/10.3240/97807
Otsuka K., & Tsumori M. (2020) Analyzing Multifunctionality of Head Movements in Face-to-Face Conversations Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. IEEE Access, 8: 217169-217195. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3041672
Sacks H., Schegloff E. A., Jefferson G. (1974) A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, 50 (4): 696. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
Schegloff E. A. (1980) The Relevance of Repair to Sy ntax-for-Conversation. T. Givon (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax (pp. 261-286). BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_012
Schegloff E. A. (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29 (1): 1-63. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500001019
Schegloff E. A. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press
Sicoli M. A. (2016) Repair organization in Chinantec whistled speech. Language, 9 2(2): 411-432. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0028
Skantze G. (2021) Turn-taking in Conversational Systems and Human-Robot Interaction: A Review.Computer Speech & Language, 67: 101178. https://doi.org/10.1016/csl.2020.101178
Zhao S. (2003) Toward a Taxonomy of Copresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12 (5): 445-455. https://doi.org/10.1162/105474603322761261
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
Коды статьи
- EDN QCKBLQ
- Тип статьи (РИНЦ) Научная статья (Научная статья)