Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:19:33.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complaints about technology as a resource for identity-work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2019

Jessica S. Robles  and
Elizabeth S. Parks
Jessica S. Robles*
Affiliation:
Loughborough University, UK
Elizabeth S. Parks
Affiliation:
Colorado State University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Jessica S. Robles, Loughborough University, Margaret Keay Road, Brockington Building, Loughborough, Leicester LE113 TU, UK[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines how people complain about technology. Using discourse analysis, we inspect sixteen hours of video-recorded focus-group interviews and focused one-on-one discussions where technology was topicalized. We investigate these conversations paying attention to (i) features of language and its situated delivery, including emphasis, word choice, metaphor, and categorizations; and (ii) how these accomplish social actions. We show how interactants use narratives of complaint-like activities about hypothetical categories of people and confessions of their own complainable participation to accomplish a ‘bemoaning’ speech act that manages competing affiliations, demands, and disagreements to construct reasonable moral identities in the situated interaction. By engaging in specific micro-level discursive practices in interaction, participants produce and reproduce what new technologies ‘mean’ to them and for contemporary society. This shows how important it is to examine opinions as situated actions rather than as simple facts about what people believe. (Complaints, accounts, stance, technology, discourse analysis, identity)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 209 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank conference attendees and reviewers at the International Communication Association, as well as editors and anonymous reviewers at Language in Society, for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

References

REFERENCES

Akar, Erkan, & Topçu, Birol (2011). An examination of the factors influencing consumers’ attitudes toward social media marketing. Journal of Internet Commerce 10:35–67.Google Scholar
Antaki, Charles, & Widdicombe, Sue (eds.) (1998). Identities in talk. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka (2005). Sequential order and sequence structure: The case of incommensurable studies on mobile phone calls. Discourse Studies 7:649–62.Google Scholar
Arminen, Ilkka; Licoppe, Christian; & Spagnolli, Anna (2016). Respecifying mediated interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(4):290–309.Google Scholar
Aronsson, Karin, & Gottzén, Lucas (2011). Generational positions at a family dinner: Food morality and social order. Language in Society 40:405–26.Google Scholar
Atelsek, Jean (1981). An anatomy of opinions. Language in Society 10:217–25.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A., & McKenna, Katelyn Y. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of Psychology 55:573–90.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance, & Segerberg, Alexandra (2011). Digital media and the personalization of collective action: Social technology and the organization of protests against the global economic crisis. Information, Communication & Society 14:770–99.Google Scholar
Benwell, Benthan, & Stokoe, Elizabeth (2006). Discourse and identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Jorg R. (1998). Introduction: Morality in discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction 31:279–94.Google Scholar
Brown, Barry; McGregor, Moira; & McMillan, Donald (2014). 100 days of iPhone use: Understanding the details of mobile device use. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, 223–32. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, Stephen C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary (2003). Sociolinguistic nostalgia and the authentication of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7:398–416.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, & Hall, Kira (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7:585–614.Google Scholar
Burkette, Allison (2013). Constructing the (m)other: A-prefixing, stance, and the lessons of motherhood. Language in Society 42:239–58.Google Scholar
Buttny, Richard (1993). Social accountability in communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Cameron, Deborah (2001). Working with spoken discourse. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Carbaugh, Donal (1989). Fifty terms for talk: A cross-cultural study. International and intercultural communication annual 13:93–120.Google Scholar
Daskal, Efrat, & Kampf, Zohar (2015). Stop griping, start complaining: How public discontent can trigger a change in broadcast entertainment content. Media, Culture & Society 37:1226–43.Google Scholar
DiDomenico, Stephen M., & Boase, Jeffrey (2013). Bringing mobiles into the conversation: Applying a conversation analytic approach to the study of mobiles in co-present interaction. In Tannen, Deborah & Trester, Anna (eds.), Discourse 2.0: Language and new media, 119–31. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
DiDomenico, S. M.; Raclaw, J.; & Robles, J. S. (2018). Attending to the mobile text summons: Managing multiple communicative activities across physically copresent and technologically mediated Interpersonal Interactions. Communication Research. doi: 10.1177/0093650218803537.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language & Social Interaction 31:295–325.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, Richard (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 137–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek (2005). Moaning, whinging and laughing: The subjective side of complaints. Discourse Studies 7:5–29.Google Scholar
Edwards, Derek, & Potter, Jonathan (2017). Some uses of subject-side assessments. Discourse Studies 19:497–514.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan, & Romaniuk, Tanya (2014). Discourse analysis. In Podesva, Robert J. & Sharma, Devyani (eds.), Research methods in linguistics, 460–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fitch, Kristine L. (2003). Cultural persuadables. Communication Theory 13:100–123.Google Scholar
Gangadharbatla, Harsha (2008). Facebook me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong, and internet self-efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration's attitudes toward social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising 8:5–15.Google Scholar
Gibson, John J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Shaw, Robert & Bransford, John (eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology, 67–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1967). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In Goffman, Erving, Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior, 4–22. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles (2007). Participation, stance and affect in the organization of activities. Discourse & Society 18:53–73.Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia; Zidjaly;, Najma Al & Tovares, Alla V. (2017). Mobile phones as cultural tools for identity construction among college students in Oman, Ukraine, and the US. Discourse, Context & Media 17:9–19.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne (1995). Exemplary stories: The cooperative construction of moral indignation. Versus 70/71:145–76.Google Scholar
Günthner, Susanne (1997). Complaint stories: Constructing emotional reciprocity among women. In Kotthoff, Helga & Wodak, Ruth (eds.), Communicating gender in context, 179–218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haddington, Pentti, & Rauniomaa, Mirka (2011). Technologies, multitasking and driving: Attending to and preparing for a mobile phone conversation in the car. Human Communication Research 37:223–54.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. (2015). New frontiers in interactive multimodal communication. In Georgapoulou, Alexandra & Spilloti, Tereza (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and digital communication, 398–402. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hickerson, Andrea, & Kothari, Ammina (2016). Learning in public faculty and student opinions about social media in the classroom. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator 72:397–409.Google Scholar
Humphreys, Lee (2010). Mobile social networks and urban public space. New Media & Society 12:763–78.Google Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra (2009). Stance: Sociolinguistic perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail (1984). Transcription notation. In Maxwell Atkinson, J. & Heritage, John (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, ix–xi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jung, Taejin; Youn, Hyunsook; & McClung, Steven (2007). Motivations and self-presentation strategies on Korean-based ‘Cyworld’ weblog format personal homepages. Cyber Psychology & Behavior 10:24–31.Google Scholar
Kapidzic, S., & Herring, Susan C. (2014). Race, gender, and self-presentation in teen profile photographs. New Media & Society 17(6):958–76.Google Scholar
Katriel, Tamar (1985). Kiturim: Griping as a verbal ritual in some Israeli discourse. Communal webs: Communication and culture in contemporary Israel, 35–49. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Helen; Elgesem, Dag; & Miguel, Cristina (2015). On fairness: User perspectives on social media data mining. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 23:270–88.Google Scholar
Laforest, Marty (2002). Scenes of family life: Complaining in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 34:1595–1620.Google Scholar
Laurier, Eric; Brown, Barry; & McGregor, Moira (2016). Mediated pedestrian mobility: Walking and the map app. Mobilities 11:117–34.Google Scholar
Laursen, Ditte (2012). Sequential organization of text messages and mobile phone calls in interconnected communication sequences. Discourse & Communication 6:83–99.Google Scholar
Lempert, Michael (2008). The poetics of stance: Text-metricality, epistemicity, interaction. Language in Society 37:569–92.Google Scholar
Lenhart, Amanda; Ling, Rich; Campbell, Scott; & Purcell, Kristen (2010). Teens and mobile phones. Online: http://www.pewinternet.org/2010/04/20/teens-and-mobile-phones/.Google Scholar
Lievrouw, Leah A. (2014). Materiality and media in communication and technology studies: An unfinished project. In Gillespie, Tarleton, Boczkowski, Pablo J., & Foot, Kirsten A. (eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society, 21–51. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindström, Anna, & Sorjonen, Marja-Leena (2013). Affiliation in conversation. In Sidnell, Jack & Stivers, Tanya (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 250–369. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ling, Rich (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone's impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Ling, Rich (2008). New tech, new ties: How mobile communication is reshaping social cohesion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ling, Rich, & Haddon, Leslie (2003). Mobile telephony, mobility, and the coordination of everyday life. In John Katz (ed.), Machines that becomes us, 245–66. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Ling, Rich, & Yttri, Birgitte (1999). Nobody sits at home and waits for the telephone to ring: Micro and hyper-coordination through the use of the mobile telephone. Telenor Forskning og Utvikling, FoU Rapport 30(99). Online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.180.1209&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. (1989). Perspective-display sequences in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication 53(2):91–113.Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. & Hudak, Pamela L. (2008). Small talk, high stakes: Interactional disattentiveness in the context of prosocial doctor-patient interaction. Language in Society 37:661–88.Google Scholar
Myers, Greg (1998). Displaying opinions: Topics and disagreement in focus groups. Language in Society 27:85–111.Google Scholar
Ong, Eileen Y.; An, Rebecca P.; Ho, Jim C.; Lim, Joylynn C.; Goh, Dion H.; Lee, Chei Sian; & Chua, Alton Y. (2011). Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents’ self-presentation on Facebook. Personality and Individual Differences 50:180–85.Google Scholar
Pearce, Katie E., & Vitak, Jessica (2015). Performing honor online: The affordances of social media for surveillance and impression management in an honor culture. New Media & Society 18:2595–2612.Google Scholar
Perelmutter, Renee (2010). Impoliteness recycled: Subject ellipsis in Modern Russian complaint discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 42:3214–31.Google Scholar
Pino, Marco (2018). Invoking the complainer's past transgressions: A practice for undermining complaints in therapeutic community meetings. Research on Language and Social Interaction 51:194–211.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita (1986). Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9:219–29.Google Scholar
Puchta, Claudia, & Potter, Jonathan (2002). Manufacturing individual opinions: Market research focus groups and the discursive psychology of evaluation. British Journal of Social Psychology 41:345–63.Google Scholar
Raclaw, Joshua; Robles, Jessica S.; & DiDomenico, Stephen M. (2016). Providing epistemic support for assessments through mobile-supported sharing activities. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49:362–79.Google Scholar
Rauniomaa, Mirka (2003). Stance accretion. Paper presented at the Language, Interaction, and Social Organization Research Focus Group, University of California, Santa Barbara, February.Google Scholar
Rivière, Carol Anne; Licoppe;, Christian & Morel, Julian (2015). Gay casual hookups on the mobile application Grindr. Réseaux 1:153–86.Google Scholar
Robles, Jessica S. (2015). Morality in discourse. In Tracy, Karen, Sandel, Todd, & Ilie, Cornelia (eds.), The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction. doi: 10.1002/9781118611463.Google Scholar
Robles, Jessica S.; DiDomenico, Stephen M.; & Raclaw, Joshua (2018). Doing being an ordinary communication technology and social media user. Language & Communication 60:150–67.Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna (2005). ‘Empathy’ and ‘sympathy’ in action: Attending to patients’ troubles in Finnish homeopathic and general practice consultations. Social Psychology Quarterly 68:204–22.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey (1992). Lectures on conversation, vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (1984). On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. In Schegloff, Emanuel A., Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, 28–52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2005). On complainability. Social Problems 52:449–76.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007a). Categories in action: Person-reference and membership categorization. Discourse Studies 9:433–61.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2007b). Sequence organization in interaction, vol. 1: A primer in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah (1996). Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Language in Society 25:167–203.Google Scholar
Shuck, Gail (2004). Conversational performance and the poetic construction of an ideology. Language in Society 33:195–222.Google Scholar
Sotirova, Nadezhda (2018). A cry and an outcry: Oplakvane (complaining) as a term for communication practice. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication 11(4):304–23.Google Scholar
Sterponi, Laura A. (2003). Account episodes in family discourse: The making of morality in everyday interaction. Discourse Studies 5(1):79–100.Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya; Mondada, Lorenza; & Steensig, Jakob (eds.) (2011). The morality of knowledge in conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stokoe, Elizabeth (2009). Doing actions with identity categories: Complaints and denials in neighbor disputes. Text & Talk 29:75–97.Google Scholar
Strauss, Claudia (2004). Cultural standing in expression of opinion. Language in Society 33:161–94.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (2006). Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk 26:597–617.Google Scholar
Thurlow, Crispin, & Brown, Alex (2003). Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people's text-messaging. Discourse analysis online 1(1). Online: https://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a3/thurlow2002003.html.Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen, & Robles, Jessica S. (2013). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Traverso, Veronique (2009). The dilemmas of third-party complaints in conversation between friends. Journal of Pragmatics 41:2385–99.Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry (2015). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Wargo, Jon M. (2017). #donttagyourhate: Reading, collecting and curating as genres of participation in LGPT youth activism on Tumblr. Digital Culture & Education 9:14–31.Google Scholar
Westerman, David; Daniel, Emory S.; & Bowman, Nicholas D. (2016). Learned risks and experienced rewards: Exploring the potential sources of students’ attitudes toward social media and face-to-face communication. The Internet and Higher Education 31:52–57.Google Scholar
Williams, Robin, & Edge, David (1996). The social shaping of technology. Research Policy 25:865–99.Google Scholar
Winkler, Ingo (2018). Identity work and emotions: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews 20:120–33.Google Scholar