Advertisement

Nexus Analysis as a Framework for Internet Studies

  • Malene Charlotte Larsen
  • Pirkko Raudaskoski
Living reference work entry

Abstract

This chapter presents a discourse analytic framework for the study of online social practices, which takes into account that these practices are constituted multimodally by the participants’ communicative performances. Focusing on what people do – and not solely on what they say – is important if we wish to understand the way people use and integrate the Internet into their everyday lives. The chapter proposes a refinement of the framework nexus analysis (Scollon and Scollon. Nexus analysis: discourse and the emerging internet. Routledge, London/New York, 2004), which distinguishes itself from other discourse analytic approaches by focusing on central-mediated actions (rather than solely on discourse). The framework combines an ethnographic methodological approach to discourse analysis, inspired by mediated discourse analysis (Scollon. Action and Text: Towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In: Wodak R, Meyer M (eds) Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage, London, pp 139–183, 2001; Scollon. Mediated discourse: the nexus of practice. Routledge, London/New York, 2001), linguistic anthropology (Norris and Jones. Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London, 2005), sociolinguistics, and psychology. The purpose is to identify the key (but not necessarily discursive) practices within a loosely tied “nexus of practice” (a place-bound constellation of humans, discourses, and cultural artefacts that constitute social action). The investigation is done with a focus on action as consisting of (1) discourses, (2) human interaction and social identities, and (3) historical bodies.

Keywords

Discourse studies Nexus analysis Methodology Multimodality Online social practices 

References

  1. Barad K (2007) Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron NS (2008) Always on: language in an online and mobile world. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. boyd d (2008) Why youth (heart) social network sites: the role of networked publics in teenage social life. In: Youth, identity, and digital media. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 119–142Google Scholar
  5. Clarke AE (2005) Situational analysis: grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Sage, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Eranti V, Lonkila M (2015) The social significance of the Facebook Like button. First Monday (6):20.  https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i6.5505
  7. Fairclough N (2013) Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Gee JP (1999) An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Goffman E (1983) The interaction ritual. Am Sociol Rev 48:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodings, L. (2011) The Dilemma of Closeness and Distance: A Discursive Analysis of Wall Posting in MySpace. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12, No 3 (2011): Qualitative Archives and Biographical Research MethodsGoogle Scholar
  11. Herring SC (2004) Computer-mediated discourse analysis: an approach to researching online behavior. In: Barab SA, Kling R, Gray JH (eds) Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 338–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hine C (2000) Virtual ethnography. Sage, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hine C (2015) Ethnography for the internet: embedded, embodied and everyday. Bloomsbury Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hafner CA, Chik A, Jones RH (2015) Digital literacies and language learning. Lang Learn Technol 19(3):1–7 Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/october2015/commentary.pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. Iedema R (2000) Bureaucratic planning & resemiotisation. In: Ventola E (ed) Discourse and community: doing functional linguistics. Narr Verlag, Tubingen, pp 47–70Google Scholar
  16. Jones R (2005) Sites of engagement as sites of attention: time, space and culture in electronic discourse. In: Norris S, Jones R (eds) Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp 144–154Google Scholar
  17. Jones R (2008) Good sex and bad karma: discourse and the historical body. In: Bhatia VK, Flowerdew J, Jones R (eds) Advances in discourse studies. Routledge, New York, pp 245–257Google Scholar
  18. Jones RH, Norris S (2005) Discourse as action/discourse in action. In: Norris S, Jones RH (eds) Discourse in action. Introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp 3–14Google Scholar
  19. Jones RH, Chik A, Hafner CA (2015) Discourse and digital practices: doing discourse in the digital age. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Kofoed J, Larsen MC (2016) A snap of intimacy: Photo-sharing practices among young people on social media. First Monday, vol 21, number 11. 07 Nov 2016. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/6905
  21. Kress GR, Van Leeuwen T (1996) Reading images: the grammar of visual design. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsen MC (2010) Unge og online sociale netværk: En neksusanalytisk undersøgelse af medierede handlinger og offentlige diskurser (Youth and online social networking: a nexus analytic study of mediated actions and public discourses). PhD thesis, Department of Communication and PsychologyGoogle Scholar
  23. Larsen MC (2013) Unges identitetsdannelse på Facebook. In: Jensen JL, Tække J (eds) Facebook. Fra socialt netværk til metamedie, 1 udg. Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, s 157–185Google Scholar
  24. Larsen MC (2014) Internetbaseret feltarbejde, spørgeskemaer og kvalitative interview: Unges brug af sociale medier. I P. Gundelach, R. S. Nielsen, & M. Frederiksen (red.), Mixed methods. (s. 159–189). Kapitel 7. Hans ReitzelGoogle Scholar
  25. Larsen MC, Ryberg T (2011) Youth and online social networking: from local experiences to public discourses. In: Dunkels E, Frånberg GM, Hällgren C (eds) Youth culture and net culture: online social practices. IGI Global, HersheyGoogle Scholar
  26. Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social: an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcus GE (1995) Ethnography in/of the world system: the emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annu Rev Anthropol 24:95–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McIlvenny P, Raudaskoski P (2005) Mediating discourses of transnational adoption on the internet. In: Norris S, Jones RH (eds) Discourse in action: introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp 62–72Google Scholar
  30. Nicolini D (2009) Zooming in and out: studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organ Stud 30(12):1391–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nicolini D (2012) Practice theory, work & organization, an introduction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Norris S, Jones RH (2005) Methodological principels and new directions in MDA. In: Norris S, Jones RH (eds) Discourse in action. Introducing mediated discourse analysis. Routledge, London, pp 201–206Google Scholar
  33. Raudaskoski P (2010) “Hi Father”, “Hi Mother”: A multimodal analysis of a significant, identity changing phone call (mediated on TV). J Pragmat 42:426–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rish RM (2011) Engaging adolescents’ interests, literary practices, and identities: digital collaborative writinng of fantasy fiction in a high school English elective class. Dissertation. The Ohio State University. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1316521200&disposition=inlineGoogle Scholar
  35. Schatzki T (2012) A primer on practices. Theory and research. In: Higgs J, Barnett R, Billett S, Hutchings M, Trede F (eds) Practice-based education: perspectives and strategies. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 13–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scollon R (2001a) Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action. In: Wodak R, Meyer M (eds) Methods of critical discourse analysis. Sage, London, pp 139–183Google Scholar
  37. Scollon R (2001b) Mediated discourse: the nexus of practice. Routledge, London/New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scollon SW (2003) Political and somatic alignment: habitus, ideology and social practice. In: Weiss G, Wodak R (eds) Critical discourse analysis: theory and interdisciplinarity. Palgrave, New York, pp 167–198Google Scholar
  39. Scollon R, Scollon SW (1995) Intercultural communication: a discourse approach. Blackwell, Oxford/BasilGoogle Scholar
  40. Scollon R, Scollon SW (2003) Discourses in place: language in the material world. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scollon R, Scollon SW (2004) Nexus analysis: discourse and the emerging internet. Routledge, London/New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Scollon R, Scollon SW (2007) Nexus analysis: refocusing ethnography on action. J Socioling 11(5):608–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Seargeant P, Tagg C (2013) The language of social media : identity and community on the internet. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills/HampshireGoogle Scholar
  44. Thurlow C (2011) Digital discourse: language in the new media. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wertsch JV (1985) Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. Wertsch JV (1991) Voices of the mind: a sociocultural approach to mediated action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  47. Wertsch JV (1998) Mind as action. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Wohlwend KE, Hansfield LJ (2012) Twinkle, twitter little stars: tensions and flows in interpreting social constructions of the techno-toddler. Digital Culture & Education 4(2):185–202Google Scholar
  49. Zappavigna M (2012) Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: how we use language to create affiliation on the web, ContinuumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and PsychologyAalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations