Difference between revisions of "Aarsand2009"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)= | + | |Author(s)=Pal Aarsand; Karin Aronsson; |
| − | |Title=Response cries and other gaming | + | |Title=Response cries and other gaming moves: building intersubjectivity in gaming |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Gaming; response cries; Intersubjectivity | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Gaming; response cries; Intersubjectivity | ||
|Key=Aarsand2009 | |Key=Aarsand2009 | ||
| − | |||
|Year=2009 | |Year=2009 | ||
| − | |||
|Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | |Journal=Journal of Pragmatics | ||
|Volume=41 | |Volume=41 | ||
|Number=8 | |Number=8 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=1557–1575 |
| + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216608002099 | ||
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.014 | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.014 | ||
|Abstract=The present study focuses on the ways in which response cries (Goffman, 1981) are deployed as interactional resources in computer gaming in everyday life. It draws on a large-scale data set of video recordings of the everyday lives of middleclass families. The recordings of gaming between children and between children and parents show that response cries were not arbitrarily located within different phases of gaming (planning, gaming or commenting on gaming). Response cries were primarily used as interactional resources for securing and sustaining joint attention (cf. Goodwin, 1996) during the gaming as such, that is, during periods when the gaming activity was characterized by a relatively high tempo. In gaming between children, response cries cooccurred with their animations of game characters and with sound making, singing along, and code switching in ways that formed something of an action aesthetic, a type of aesthetic that was most clearly seen in gaming between game equals (here: between children). In contrast, response cries were rare during the planning phases and during phases in which the participants primarily engaged in setting up or adjusting the game. | |Abstract=The present study focuses on the ways in which response cries (Goffman, 1981) are deployed as interactional resources in computer gaming in everyday life. It draws on a large-scale data set of video recordings of the everyday lives of middleclass families. The recordings of gaming between children and between children and parents show that response cries were not arbitrarily located within different phases of gaming (planning, gaming or commenting on gaming). Response cries were primarily used as interactional resources for securing and sustaining joint attention (cf. Goodwin, 1996) during the gaming as such, that is, during periods when the gaming activity was characterized by a relatively high tempo. In gaming between children, response cries cooccurred with their animations of game characters and with sound making, singing along, and code switching in ways that formed something of an action aesthetic, a type of aesthetic that was most clearly seen in gaming between game equals (here: between children). In contrast, response cries were rare during the planning phases and during phases in which the participants primarily engaged in setting up or adjusting the game. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:02, 23 November 2019
| Aarsand2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Aarsand2009 |
| Author(s) | Pal Aarsand, Karin Aronsson |
| Title | Response cries and other gaming moves: building intersubjectivity in gaming |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Gaming, response cries, Intersubjectivity |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 8 |
| Pages | 1557–1575 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.014 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The present study focuses on the ways in which response cries (Goffman, 1981) are deployed as interactional resources in computer gaming in everyday life. It draws on a large-scale data set of video recordings of the everyday lives of middleclass families. The recordings of gaming between children and between children and parents show that response cries were not arbitrarily located within different phases of gaming (planning, gaming or commenting on gaming). Response cries were primarily used as interactional resources for securing and sustaining joint attention (cf. Goodwin, 1996) during the gaming as such, that is, during periods when the gaming activity was characterized by a relatively high tempo. In gaming between children, response cries cooccurred with their animations of game characters and with sound making, singing along, and code switching in ways that formed something of an action aesthetic, a type of aesthetic that was most clearly seen in gaming between game equals (here: between children). In contrast, response cries were rare during the planning phases and during phases in which the participants primarily engaged in setting up or adjusting the game.
Notes
