Embedded Reference: Translocating Gestures in Video-Mediated Interaction

References

• Anstis, S. M., Mayhew, J. W., & Morley, T. (1969). The perception of where a face or television “portrait” is looking. The American Journal of Psychology, 82(4), 474–489. doi:10.2307/1420441
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyle, M., & Cook, M. (1976). Gaze and mutual gaze. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Büscher, M., Mogensen, P., Shapiro, D., & Wagner, I. (1999, September). The Manufaktur: Supporting work practice in (landscape) architecture. Paper presented at the ECSCW ‘99, Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Fish, R. S., Kraut, R. E., Root, R. W., & Rice, R. E. (1992, May). Evaluating video as a technology for informal communication. Paper presented at the CHI ‘92, Monterey, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Gale, S. (1994). Desktop video conferencing: Technical advances and evaluation issues. In S. A. R. Scrivener (Ed.), Computer-supported cooperative work: The multimedia and networking paradigm (pp. 81–104). Aldershot, England: Avebury Technical.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, W. W. (1992, October 31–November 4). The affordances of media spaces for collaboration. Paper presented at the CSCW ‘92, Toronto, ON, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, W. W., Moran, T., Maclean, A., Lovstrand, L., Dourish, P., Carter, K. A., & Buxton, W. (1992, May). Realizing a video environment: EuroPARC’s RAVE system. Paper presented at the CHI 92, Monterey, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Gaver, W. W., Moran, T., Maclean, A., Lovstrand, L., Dourish, P., Carter, K. A., & Buxton, W. (1994). Working together in media space: CSCW research at euroPARC. In S. A. R. Scrivener (Ed.), Computer-supported cooperative work: The multimedia and networking paradigm (pp. 185–205). Aldershot, England: Avebury Technical.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. (1964). The neglected situation. American Anthropologist, 66(6_PART2), 133–136. doi:10.1525/aa.1964.66.suppl_3.02a00090
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organisation: Interaction between speakers and hearers. London, England: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00096-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as a situated practice. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture and cognition meet (pp. 217–241). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Harper, R., & Carter, K. (1994). Keeping people apart. CSCW Journal, 2(3), 199–207.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, S. (Ed.). (2009). Media space 20 + years of mediated life. London, England: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C. C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analyzing social interaction in everyday life. London, England: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C. C., & Luff, P. (1992). Media space and communicative asymmetries: Preliminary observations of video mediated interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 315–346. doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0703_3
   Google Scholar
• Heath, C. C., & Luff, P. (1993, June). Media space and communication asymmetries: Privacy and control within an organisation environment. Paper presented at the Espaces publics: esthetiques de la democratie, Cerisy-la-Salle, France.
   Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh, J., Fraser, M., Heath, C. C., Benford, S., & Greenhalgh, C. (1998, November). Fragmented interaction: Establishing mutual orientation in virtual environments. Paper presented at the CSCW’98, Seattle, WA.
   Google Scholar
• Hindmarsh, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(12), 1855–1878. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00122-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirata, K., Harada, Y., Takada, T., Aoyagi, S., Shirai, Y., Yamashita, N., & Nakazawa, K. (2008, December). t-Room: Next generation video communication system. Paper presented at the World Telecommunications Congress at IEEE Globecom (WTC’08), New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Ishii, H., & Kobayashi, M. (1992, May). ClearBoard: A seamless medium for shared drawing and conversation with eye contact. Paper presented at the CHI’92, Monterey, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Hartswood, M., Slack., R., Simpson, A., Coopman, C., & Voss, A. (2005). Collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: The eDiaMoND case study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(4), 369–398. doi:10.1007/s10606-005-9001-0
   Google Scholar
• Keating, E., Edwards, T., & Mirus, G. (2008). Cybersign and new proximities: Impacts of new communication technologies on space and language. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1067–1081. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.02.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keating, E., & Mirus, G. (2003). American Sign Language in virtual space: Interactions between deaf users of computer-mediated video communication and the impact of technology on language practices. Language in Society, 32, 693–714. doi:10.1017/S0047404503325047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction: Studies in the behaviour of social interaction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koschmann, T., LeBaron, C., Goodwin, C., & Feltovich, P. (2011). “Can you see the cystic artery yet?” A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 521–541. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koschmann, T., & Zemel, A. (2014). Instructed objects. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality and social activity (pp. 357–380). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Kuzuoka, H., Yamashita, J., Yamazaki, K., & Yamazaki, A. (1999). Agora: A remote collaboration system that enables mutual monitoring. In M. G. Williams (Ed.), Proceedings of Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI’99. Extended Abstracts (pp. 190–191). New York, NY: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Licoppe, C. (2015). Video communication and “camera action”: The output of video shots wide in courtrooms with remote defendants. Journal of Pragmatics, 76, 117–134. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2014.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2009, September). The collaborative work of producing meaningful shots in mobile video telephony. Paper presented at the Mobile HCI’09, Bonn, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2013). Appearings in video communications: Interactionally generated encounters and the accomplishment of mutual proximity in mobile phone conversations. In P. Haddington, L. Mondada, & M. Nevile (Eds.), Interaction and mobility: Language and the body in motion (pp. 277–299). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2014a, June). Appearings in video communications. Paper presented at the Skype Connections and the Gaze of Friendship and Family, Cambridge, England.
   Google Scholar
• Licoppe, C., & Morel, J. (2014b). Mundane video directors in interaction: Showing one’s environment in Skype and mobile video calls. In M. Broth, E. Laurier, & L. Mondada (Eds.), Studies of video practices: Video at work (pp. 135–160). Abingdon, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Hindmarsh, J., Yamazaki, K., & Oyama, S. (2003). Fractured ecologies: Creating environments for collaboration. Special Issue of the HCI Journal: ‘Talking about Things: Mediated Conversations about Objects’, 18(1–2), 51–84.
   Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Heath, C., Kuzuoka, H., Yamazaki, K., & Yamashita, J. (2006, April). Handling documents and discriminating objects in hybrid spaces. Paper presented at the CHI 2006, Montreal, QC, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Heath, C., & Pitsch, K. (2009). Indefinite precision: The use of artefacts-in-interaction in design work. In C. Jewitt (Ed.), Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis (pp. 213–222). London, England: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Jirotka, M., Heath, C., Eden, G., Yamashita, N., & Kuzuoka, H. (2013). Embedding interaction: The accomplishment of actions in everyday and video-mediated environments. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1). doi:10.1145/2442106.2442112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Yamashita, N., Kuzuoka, H., & Heath, C. (2011, May). Hands-on Hitchcock: Embodied reference to a moving scene. Paper presented at the CHI 2011, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Luff, P., Yamashita, N., Kuzuoka, H., & Heath, C. (2015, April). Flexible ecologies and incongruent locations. Paper presented at the CHI 2015, Seoul, South Korea.
   Google Scholar
• Minatani, S., Kitahara, I., Kameda, Y., & Ohta, Y. (2007, November). Face-to-face tabletop remote collaboration in mixed reality. Paper presented at the ISMAR’07, IEEE Computer Society, Nara, Japan.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2007). Operating together through videoconference: Members’ procedures for accomplishing a common space of action. In S. Hester & D. Francis (Eds.), Orders of ordinary action (pp. 51–67). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Mondada, L. (2014). The shaping of things in the kitchen. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality and social activity (pp. 199–226). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. (2004). Imagination as joint activity: The case of architectural interaction. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 11(4), 267–278. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca1104_3
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, K. (2005). Collaborative imagining: The interactive use of gestures, talk, and graphic representation in architectural practice. Semiotica, 156, 113–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heinemann, T., & Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.). (2014). Interacting with objects: Language, materiality and social activity. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K., Kjeldskov, J., & Paay, J. (2011). Blended interaction spaces for distributed team collaboration. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 18(1), 3–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streeck, J. (1996). How to do things with things: Objects trouvé and symbolization. Human Studies, 19, 365–384. doi:10.1007/BF00188849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tang, J. C., & Minneman, S. L. (1991). VideoDraw: A video interface for collaborative drawing. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 9(2), 170–184. doi:10.1145/123078.128729
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tutt, D., & Hindmarsh, J. (2011). Reenactments at work: Demonstrating conduct in data sessions. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 44(3), 211–236. doi:10.1080/08351813.2011.591765
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weilenmann, A., & Lymer, G. (2014). Incidental and essential objects in interaction: Paper documents in journalistic work. In M. Nevile, P. Haddington, T. Heinemann, & M. Rauniomaa (Eds.), Interacting with objects: Language, materiality and social activity (pp. 319–337). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar