Beginning a Monologue- The Opening Sequence of Video Blogs

8/4/2019 Beginning a Monologue- The Opening Sequence of Video Blogs

1/14

Beginning a monologue: The opening sequence of video blogs

Maximiliane Frobenius *

Saarland University, Geb. C5 3, Campus Saarbrcken, D-66123 Saarbrcken, Germany

1. Introduction

This paper describes the opening sequences of video blogs (vlogs). It presents the various ways people make use of

conventions from other genres, how they make up and try to establish their own conventions, and how this facilitates the

production of a vlog, especially the opening sequence. Research on openings and research on monologues is applied to vlog

data, integrating the two strands.

Schegloff (1968), in hisarticle Sequencingin Conversational Openings, focussed on theallocation of speaker roles (a and

b, or first speakerand second speaker) between two parties. Assuming that conversation between two or more participants is

the default, most frequent pattern, then monologues, which lack an opening phase constructed around fairly quick

exchanges of turns, must pose a challenge. Garrod and Pickering (2004) claim that dialogue is easier to produce than

monologue because of an interactive processing mechanism that leads to the alignment of linguistic representations

between partners. However, in the production of a monologue, there is no second speaker to negotiate these roles with. Thus,

single speakers must develop compensatory strategies that make up for the missing co-construction which entails a lack of

turn taking and negotiation of speaker roles. These strategies are a rich area of study whose exploration will help illuminategenerally how speakers adapt to their speech situation, not only in the context of monologues, but also in the context of

newly developing media more generally. The current study gives an overview of the different strategies vloggers employ,

proposing a taxonomy of different practices in opening sequences. As vlogs make up a fairly young genre which is still

developing, this categorization cannot encompass the complete range of openings.

Thepresentinvestigation applies previousfindings fromresearch on monologuesand researchon openings to thenovelarea

of vlogs.The study laysout thefeatures of talkthat is bereft of salientdialogic elements, i.e. phatic communion andsequentality,

which cannot occur due to the missing interlocutor. I demonstrate how the transition from silence to talk is managed instead

Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 814827

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 12 November 2009Received in revised form 17 September 2010

Accepted 19 September 2010

Keywords:

CMC

Computer-mediated communication

Vlog

Video blog

Monologue

Opening

A B S T R A C T

This study investigates the beginning sequences of video blogs, a relatively new form of

computer-mediated communication. It analyzes spoken language with regards to thethree salient factors that shape the situation the passages under analysis occur in: (1) it is

monologic language, (2) the passages are opening sequences, (3) the passages are taken

from a CMC context. As a result, the paper provides a taxonomy of practices commonly

used in this setting. Furthermore, I demonstrate that speakers develop and borrow

strategies to compensate for the missing interlocutor. Openings in video blogs do not

necessarily have the same functions as conversational openings in other settings. They

represent an interactional element to encourage viewers to respond via the interactive

feature embedded in the website, and they work toward identity construction.

2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Tel.: +49 681 3022214; fax: +49 681 3023670.

E-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / p r a g m a

0378-2166/$ see front matter 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.018mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.018http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.018http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03782166mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.018


2/14

using strategies borrowed fromother monologic genres, while taking intoconsideration the technical optionsof the vlog genre.

These options render the data unique in the study of computer-mediated communication (CMC) or mediated discourse in

general, since two phases of production of unscripted, spoken material need to be distinguished, as I show in the next section.

Everything that is usually negotiated in openings (availability for interaction, identification, social status, alignment of

participants) is irrelevant for vlog openings, since (some of) these things happen via different channels. So if openingsequences

in vlogs are not actually needed, one must ask why some speakers have an introductory phase. As early as 1956, Horton and

Wohl coined the term para-social interaction to describe practices used in TV presenters talk, such as direct address of the

audience. Tolson(2005) states about greetings directedat theaudience in monologic media talkthat the talk constructsa place

forpotential interaction,whether ornot it istakenup in practice(10). Hecontinues:Itmightsimplybe a way of reachingoutto

the active listener, provoking a basic form of active listenership. Transferred to vlog openings, these statements assign

interactive elements of the vlog text the function of persuading the viewers to make use of the various features of the website

that allow them to reply: writing comments, rating the video, sending a personal message or posting a video response.

On a theoretical level, this paper contributes to the description of monologues as interaction by revealing what resources

speakers use to appeal to their audience. Speakers on vlogs clearly try to make their videos interesting to their audience, to

include them in the interaction by discussing relevant topics and addressing them directly, or to persuade them to engage in

two-way interaction via channels outside the actual video. The basic underlying assumption is that audience design is a

driving factor in this genre, even though the audience is largely unknown to the speaker and does not take an active part in

the spoken interaction. The first moments of a video are highly relevant for the viewers decision whether to continue

watching it or not, and this represents an incentive for vloggers to make their openings particularly relevant to the audience.

The data consist of a corpus that currently contains 100 vlogs that were made and uploaded to the website YouTube

between 2006 and 2010. They vary in length between 29 s and 9 min, 32 s. They were recorded by 26 female and 32 male

speakers. The speakers whose vlogs are analyzed in this paper were asked for permission to use their video data for linguistic

analysis. Two users are mentioned by their online username only either because their contact data was not available, or they

did not reply to the request.1

This paper introduces vlogs as a genre, followed by an overview of previous research on openings and on monologues.

Data analysis forms the main body of this study. The paper concludes with a discussion of the findings regarding openings,

monologues, and CMC.

2. Vlogs as genre

Vlogs are a relatively new multimodal genre of CMC, involving a speaker shooting video footage of him- or herself, which

is later uploaded onto the internet. In the production of a vlog, there are two phases: the taping of the material, during which

speech production takes place, and the editing of the video, during which the original sequences can be altered significantly.

Depending on video editing skills and the vloggers choices, vlogs display various degrees of editing work. Thus, during the

editing phase, vloggers make decisions about every image and every sound they have recorded.

Most vlogs feature a single speaker. Usually, there are no signs of other peoples presence during the taping. Vlogs

instantiate non-scripted, non-institutionalized monologue situations, as opposed to fairly conventionalized situations such

as lectures, news reports, radio broadcast talk, sermons, etc. They display parallels to answering machine messages, which

are also generally unscripted but have, as a genre, developed conventions. With lectures, sermons, and news reports, there is

an obvious reversal in the order of appearance of content and medium/genre: clearly, the genre has been developed as a

means of spreading information effectively. Lectures are an established vehicle for the dissemination of topic bound

information from one expert to a potentially large audience. Sermons work along the same pattern only in a different setting

and with more restrictions with regard to the topic. News reports are one realization of spreading information about recent

events, a need for which has long existed before they took on the form of TV or radio monologues. Vlogs, on the other hand,

developed first as a new medium: as video hosting websites facilitated the exchange of video data, users started generating

original content to make use of this medium created by technological progress.

The vlog setting differs from other monologue settings. There are signs of nervousness or hesitation present in vlogs, such

as laughter, that are not expected at the beginning of lectures, sermons, news reports, etc., which might, however, occur in

answering machine talk. I ascribe this primarily to the lack of conventions and the free choice of topic that are features of

vlogs, and to some degree of answering machine talk, but not of the other genres mentioned. Likewise, there are no temporal

restrictions for vlogs. Both the news and lectures have fixed times for the beginning and the end. Sermons have an assigned

1 The Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) suggests several criteria to be checked concerning internet research ethics ( Ess, 2002). The following

arguments based on these criteria lead me to believe that using this data is ethically acceptable. The interaction under study takes place on a publicly

accessible website. This site offersits users to restrictaccess tocertainotherusers, i.e. a private modus.Noneof thevideosinvestigated in this paper were set

to that modus. Furthermore, vloggers regularly show signs of their consciousness of the fact that they are in a public setting, as they encourage actions

(please rate, comment and subscribe) that create more traffic and thus attract more viewers to their channel. YouTubes terms of use state that Any

personal information or video content that you voluntarily disclose online (e.g., video comments, your profile page) may be collected and used by others.

Creators of the material (vloggers) whose content is cited in this article are (according to the information they give online) over 18 years of age; vlogs by

underage users are not explicitly discussed here, however, they are part of the data discussed in section 4. There are no ethically significant risks ( Ess,

2002:7) for vloggers whose content is discussed here: firstly, the research is concerned with the form of the language used, not the content, secondly,opening sequences hardly represent sensitive topics.

M. Frobenius / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 814827 815


3/14

slot in the fixed order of events in a church service, resulting in restrictions with respect to length. However, vlogs can be

recorded at any time. So, lecturers, preachers, and news reporters have to adhere to certain time frames when delivering

their work. Vloggers, on the other hand, may postpone the job of recording, or they may shoot and re-shoot footage as often

as they want. Callers who leave answering machine messages have to make several choices which restrict them in certain

ways: first, they need to decide to leave a message in the first place; second, once they have decided that, they cannot choose

when to tape the message, thus they have no preparation time. This could be a reason for the development of patterns in

answering machine talk: callers might feel under pressure to produce coherent talk immediately and on record. A generally

accepted template along which to produce this talk is a helpful strategy.

Vlogs have a special theoreticalsignificance in thatthey constitute a genre so young thatthe conventions are still in a process

of negotiation. The conditionsa vloggerfaces are similarto those of a televisionnews presenter. In both settings, people talkinto

a generally immobilecamera, whichrestricts speakersto a limited area not just to stay within the camera frame, but also tostay

within the microphone sensitivity range. Also the cameras angle of view is smaller than a humans field of vision that is

available in face-to-face conversation, and of course it is two-dimensional. Despite these similarities, the outcome of the two

genres is quite different. Thus, vlogs are significantly shaped by the social context:a vlogger is an independent (usually, but not

necessarily) unpaid, private and untrained individual, while a TV news presenter is a journalist representing a broadcast

network. Vloggers usually reach between just a few (less than 100) and several thousands of viewers, with few exceptions

that run into the millions. News broadcasts on TV regularly attract a multiple of those numbers. Vlogs can be about any

topic, presented as personal opinions, while news broadcasts report recent events often assuming an objective stance. As a

result, vloggers speak andbehaveless formally thanTV presenters,who adhere to a certain formal etiquette. Vloggers laugh, tell

jokes, sing, vary in volume (from whispering to yelling), use taboo language and other informal vocabulary, etc.

Vlogs are distinctfrom blogs,another asynchronousmode of online communication, in several ways, butthe twogenresalso

share certain features. Blogs are defined as frequently modified web pages containing dated entries listed in reverse

chronological sequence (Herring et al., 2004). They are predominantly made up of written language, though some contain

images or have video sequences embedded. All posts that are archived on one users page make up his or her blog. Vlog posts

constitute a vlog by themselves; the entirety of one users vlog posts is archived on their profile page (channel), also in

chronological order. Thus, a blogger posts on their blog, a vlogger posts a vlog. Many blogs can be characterized as single-

authored, personal diaries (Herring et al., 2005); vloggers, too, tend to discuss personal matters in monologic form. Both

vloggers andbloggers arealwaysin controlof their posts, makingdecisionsaboutthe length,topic, degreeof formality etc.Blogs

cancontainlinks to other websites, for example as hyperlinks in thetext. Vloggershave the option of editinghyperlinks intothe

video frame of their vlog, though this is one of the more recent technical features. In both genres, recipients can post written

comments (although this function canbe disabled, or, for a number of blogs, it is notpart of the blogger software(Herringet al.,

2005)); in the case of vlogs, one can post another video as a response. This appears underneath the video frame.

These similarities, and of course the derivation of the name vlog from blog, suggest that vlogs constitute a sub-genre,

or type, of blog. Scheidt (2009), quoting Wikipedia, defines vlogs as weblogs that use video to tell their stories, often instead

of or in addition to text (p.44). That classification seems sensible from a perspective that describesan internet genre ecology

emphasizing the similarities in purpose, authorial options and subsequent organization. From a linguistic perspective, I

consider essential the distinction between vlogs that use spoken language and moving images (including gestures, gaze,

shifts in pitch and volume, etc.) and written weblogs, resulting in a system that classifies vlog and blog as sub-cases of ashared genre.

As a working definition of vlogs I suggest a video sequence similar to a blog that a user (vlogger) shoots of him- or herself

talking into a camera and, after optional editing, uploads to the internet, where viewers can rate it and/or leave comments in

written or video form. I distinguish between vlogs and other videos such as sketches or how-to videos based on the main

focus on the content of the spoken language: vloggers predominantly tell stories or discuss topical events. The focus in a

sketch or how-to video is on the action shown in the images that are accompanied by spoken language.

3. Research on openings and research on monologues

Gold (1991) identifies four sections in answering machine messages and describes the devices callers use to compensate

for their absent interlocutor. She observes that the greeting section (p. 246) contains elements borrowed from other

genres: greetings are reminiscent of the ritualized salutations in letters; information such as date and/or location and time

also occur in the letter frame. Further, she likens answering machine talk greetings to written language as both contain

features that compensate for the time/space gap between interlocutors. Gold describes self-identification as a feature of

answering machine messages, while she deems it pragmatically inappropriate in both face-to-face and regular telephone

conversation. Vlog openings contain features borrowed from other genres as well: some contain self-identification and the

date the video is posted. Vlogs and answering machine messages differ in important respects: vlogs are audio-visual rather

than audio data, and they are recorded with the knowledge that one is about to produce a monologue which can therefore be

planned in advance. Answering machine messages are unplanned recordings, by callers who expected to have a dialogue

with another person. Vloggers can edit their material after recording it; callers speaking on answering machine tapes cannot

do so in most cases.

Liddicoat (1994), expanding the research by Gold (1991) to cover both the pre-recorded message by the called party and

the spontaneously recorded message by the caller, points out that technological means of communication place constraints

M. Frobenius / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 814827816


4/14

on talk which lead to systematic modification of the available stock of conversational routines (p. 308). Interactive routines

that regularly take place in face-to-face or telephone interaction may be truncated or avoided (p. 307). Since vlogs, too, place

constraints on talk, it is to be expected that modifications or a different usage pattern of routine phrases show up in them.

Aijmer (2007) analyzes two sets of answering machine message data, studying the use of routine phrases. She says of

answering machine message openings that a greeting phrase suggests that you are aware of addressing a person rather than

a machine. And a particular event may, but need not be accompanied by a routinized phrase. (p. 329) Thus, she

distinguishes between messages where callers imagine or construct a recipient and those where callers view the answering

machine only as a machine. The concept of an imagined or constructed audience helps explain why vloggers greet and

address their viewers. But it is not one to one applicable to the vlog situation since it is difficult to argue that vlogs without

greeting and address were not filmed with an imagined audience in mind. Further, the study illustrates that routine phrases

used in certain speech events or certain media develop over time. This suggests that for vlogs this process might be in its

early stages, and quite possibly it will take another few years until comparable conventions can be observed in vlog data.

Schegloff (1967) observes about the beginnings of phone calls that openings [. . .] provide [. . .] continuity into the body of

conversation and that they are not separable or dispensable (p. 51). He explains how the non-terminality of summons-

answer (SA) sequences helps establish the coordinated entry into abab sequencing in phone conversations and how SA

sequences align the roles of speaker and hearer (p. 122). In presupposing that conversation is a minimally two party

activity he implicitly states that monologues have a different status. Hence, there does not seem to be any ground for

summonses in monologue openings at all.

Furthermore, Schegloff states that a multiplicity of jobs . . . get done in openings, such as checking the availabilityof some

co-present person to engage in interaction, (re)constitution of the relationship of the parties, and negotiation of topic

(1986:113). Sincein vlogs none of these functions arenecessary for the talk to proceed,a recognizable opening sequence seems

dispensable. The functions listed by Schegloff are non-negotiable in the vlog situation. The viewer can choose not to enter the

situation at all by not playing the video. However,that decision is based on factors relevant before the talk starts(the username

of the vlogger, the title of the vlog, its description, and the thumbnail image one sees on the website). It is not subject to some

joint activity in the talk. Therefore, we can assume that openings in vlogs must fulfill other functions. Since viewers can also

decide to stop watching the vlog at any moment,one principal function might be to raise the viewers interestand induce them

to watch the whole vlog. Similarly, Labov and Fanshel (1977) use the concept of reportability to describe storytellers

justifications for their narratives to prevent rejection from the interlocutors on the basis of being ordinary.

Laver (1975, 1981) observes that the use of routine formulae is most dense in the marginal phases of interaction, i.e.

openings and closings, and that negotiations about social status and role are conducted with the help of formulaic phrases,

address terms and phatic communion in them. This serves to defuse the potential hostility of silence (p. 226). Phatic

communion can in this sense not take place in a vlog since there is no immediate negotiation. The opening sequence can

nonetheless be used by the vlogger to display status or social role.

Two studies that are concerned with openings in written CMC contexts are Rintel et al. (2001) and Waldvogel (2007).

Rintel et al. investigate openings in internet relay chat (IRC). They discuss the various channel entry phase (CEP)

progressions, made up of automatically generated messages by the server and the users own posts, which can take place

when a new user joins a chat room. Waldvogel studies email openings in work place settings. As in this study of vlogs, there

are email openings that contain both greeting and term of address, neither of the two, or just one of the two. The choice of

combination (and the choice of words) reflect back on social variables, e.g. gender, power structures within the work place,

seniority, and on the degree of harmony and support among staff.

Literature on monologues is often tied to the genre of classroom interaction. Studies rarely focus on the beginning of

monologues, but they describe other phenomena instead. Montgomery (1981) analyzes the structure of lecture monologues.

Clark (1996) defines monologue as a situation where one person speaks with little or no opportunity for interruption or

turns by members of the audience, clearly restricting the notion monologue to spoken language.

Smith et al. (2005), trace the strategies speakers use to establish referents in monologues in a research context when

introducing new characters in a retelling of a film. They stress the importance of the quality of the assumed audience for

creating common ground. The assumed audience presumably plays an important role in vlogs,especially if there is a greeting

and terms of address. Discussing a type of monologue where the audience is present, Glick (2007) interprets a stand-up

comedians voicing of multiple parties to create a dialogic frame. The discussion of the monologue passages is not concerned

with reactions by the present audience (there is no sign of the audience in the transcription, either). Wells and Bull (2007), in

contrast, specifically focus on affiliative audience response in stand-up comedy and political speeches. They cite examples

where comedians invite reactions from their audience by greeting and addressing them directly or stepping out of character.

Especially at the beginning of these routines, comedians use simple questions that elicit collective answers from the

audience. Clearly, comedians make use of the communicative channel between them and the audience with the expectation

of instant feedback. Though some of these rhetorical devices (greeting, term of address, simple question) are in some cases

present in vlogs, of course no immediate audience reaction is expected. Duman and Locher (2008) explore monologic

YouTube videos by the presidential candidates Obama and Clinton. The study focuses on the video exchange as conversation

metaphorthat the candidates make use of while copingwith the fact that technical limitations of YouTube do not permitthe

immediacy/synchronicity of conversation (p. 205). This metaphor is created through the actual visual representation of the

candidates in the imitation of face-to face interaction (p. 202). In some of these videos, the candidates answer selected

questions that were posted as comments online which is a function of vlogs, too. These presidential candidates videos are



5/14

very similar to regular vlogs, though the words spoken are presumably very carefully composed by a whole team. Vlogs, too,

then might contain features that draw upon the source domain of conversation (p. 219).

4. Data collection and methodology

My examples were chosen to reflect the practices that commonly occur in vlogs and not to highlight single occurrences of

selected phenomena. To be able to choose those recurring features, I collected 41 vlogs and analyzed them.

Procedure:I entered the word vlog into the search function of the website YouTube, which insured that I collected only videos that

have the word vlog in the title. While this search did not turn up any of the vlogs that do not have the word vlog in the title,

it listed only those videos that are named, and thus probably considered, vlogs by the users. I collected monologic, English

data only, filtering out videos in other languages or those with several speakers present.

Transcribing the first few moments of the vlog and listing their features provided me with statistics on which to base my

choice of examples. I noted down whether:

- there was an opening sequence containing written language and/or music resembling openings credits of a movie or TV

show

- it was shot indoors or outdoors

- there was a greeting

- there was a term of address

- there was self-identification- the vlogger stated the date of filming

- there were discourse markers

- the vlogger used cuts as an editorial feature

Further, I noted down the vloggers age, the number of subscribers, and the country of residence, which can be found on the users

profile page (except sometimes the age, which some users do not give in these cases I filled in a rough estimate). To check

whether there was an effect of time difference throughout the English-speaking world on country of residence, I checked another

40 vlogs at a later time in the day (first 41: 12 noon; second 40: 17 CET) for that feature. In my data collection I did not include

those vlogs that featured more than one speaker, since in this study I am concerned with monologues without a present audience

only.

The 41 vlogs yielded the following statistical data: 18 were done by female, 23 by male vloggers; 11 vlogs were

headed by a sequence containing written opening credits (and sometimes music), 30 started directly with a person

talking or images of other things (e.g. trees, a computer screen, a street scene); 8 vlogs were filmed outdoors, 32 indoors,1 has audio only accompanied by a still image; 24 contain greeting terms, 17 vloggers do not greet their audience; 22

vloggers used terms of address for their audience, 19 did not (3 without greeting had a term of address, five with

greeting had no term of address, 14 without greeting did not have term of address either, 19 with greeting also had a

term of address); 26 vloggers had no self identification, 5 had their (user)name in the opening credits or the title, 10

verbally stated their (user)name in the opening sequence; 6 vloggers used cuts to edit their videos, 35 did not; 24

vlogger had discourse or boundary markers in their opening sequences, 6 of which used them as their first word, 17

used no such markers; 29 did not mention the date at all, 8 had it in the title or credits, and only four mentioned it

verbally; the youngest vlogger was 10-15, the oldest 50-60, the average age was 25; the lowest number of subscribers of

a user was 1, the highest 263,426, the average was 10,862; 62 (of 81) users are US Americans, 9 are British, 6 are

Canadians, 2 Australians, 1 each are French, German, and Dutch.

Thenextanalyticalstepwas toexaminemore vlogs bythe same users toestablish how manyof themrepeatedly made useof

the same, established patterns in their vlog openings. 20 vloggers videos were further examined, resulting in the following

statistics:2 had only one video uploaded; 4 had no recognizable pattern in their opening sequences; 14 had identical opening

sequences in at least 50% of their vlogs.Of these 14, 8 always started their vlogs with a greetingand termof address. The most

common greetings are hi, hey, hello. The most common terms of address are everyone, everybody, guys, and YouTube and

youtubers. 3 vloggers regularly employed only one of the two features either term of address or greeting. The remaining 3

used linguistic markers (okay), the date, or had several patterns that they used equally often. This small sample suggests that

a majority of vloggers recurrently use identical or very similar opening sequences in their vlogs. Generally, there seems to be

a tendency for vloggers to employ the structure greeting plus term of address.

Based on these statistics the examples analyzed in this article were chosen. The selection represents the most common

elements of vlog openings. In the following there will be close analyses of vlog openings that contain greetings, terms of

address, self-identification, discourse or boundary markers, cuts, the date, objects or animals that are the subject of talk,

opening credits, and there will also be an example where none of these elements occur. Further, the analysis will illustrate

how vloggers who have established a pattern in their opening sequence deviate from that pattern.

The transcription conventions can be found in the appendix. Links to the videos are included in the references.



6/14

5. Types of openings in the data

The first part of this section presents examples that contain the features of opening sequences listed in the previous

section in various combinations. It also describes examples that are marked by the absence of these features. The second part

deals with examples by users who have established their own recognizable opening sequence.

5.1. The features of opening sequences

5.1.1. Opening containing greeting, term of address, self-identification, linguistic markersThe first example is by a male US-American in his late fifties (all examples are headed by their original titles in bold print).

THIS is STUPID!!!

1 ((laughs)) {waving}

2 hey YouTubers its me Zipster.

3 okay,

4 so,

5 today I was thinking about um,

6 a couple of weeks ago me an um,

7 me an Sign543,

8 had to go to the DMV cause,

This vloggers opening sequences are started off by laughter and a stylized kind of waving. He greets his audience with the

informal hey and addresses them as YouTubers. This term of address reflects the affiliation with the video hosting

website (YouTube) that he assumes for his audience. At the same time, it subsumes a yet unknown number of people under

their only relevant common property, i.e. they are all users of YouTube. Therefore, this reflects a certain degree of anonymity

inherent in some communication on the internet: in this case it is single-blind, in that at the time of production the speaker

does not know who will be watching the video, whereas at the time of reception, the viewer knows exactly who is talking.

Later, the vlogger sees at least how many views his or her vlog has, and if there are comments or video responses, gets a sense

of who the viewers are.

Its me Zipster introduces the vlogger by his user name, which is also the name he gives to his character. Zipster is in

apposition to me, which implies that this is not the first video he has posted, and that his viewers should recognize him.

The whole clause is reminiscent of the beginnings of answering machine talk, where a caller identifies him- or herself. Since

in the case of vlogs, identification is facilitated by the accompanying images of the speaker, and since the navigation throughthe internet/YouTube that is involved in playing a vlog raises strong expectations about whose vlog one is about to watch, I

assume that self identification might only be a secondary purpose of this clause. Rather, Zipster uses this recurrent bit in

most of his vlogs to coin his own catchphrase and thus establish a unique character.

The fact that Zipster borrows this sort of introduction from answering machine talk, or possibly radio or TV talk, reflects

the lack of conventions for the genre vlog. This is an example of a vlogger who apparently feels the need to have an opening

sequence that is recognizable as such, and since there is no standard wording available, he provides a make-shift adaptation

from another genre.

In lines 3 and 4, there are two discourse markers okay and so that signal the transition from the introductory unit to

the main body of the vlog, which in this case begins with a narrative. Not only is there a shift topic-wise, but there is also a

change from an informal mode (laughter and waving), to a more serious tone (change in facial expression) that allows the

speaker to set up his story, leaving room for humorous build-up later on.

5.1.2. Opening containing greeting, term of addressExample 2 was posted by a male US-American in his mid-thirties.

Re: Who are you....Who, Who...Who, Who

1 hey Renetto.

2 uhm, {rubs his right eye with fingers}

3 lets see. {looks at piece of paper}

4 first up.

5 yes I am a person.

6 no Im not a kid.

7 yes I have a job?

8 yes I have a life?



7/14

The significant difference from the previous example is that here, a single, specific, real life person is being addressed (who is

most likely known to most viewers of this vlog, since this video was posted as a video response to a vlog by the user he is

addressing: Renetto). This speaker displays some nervousness through a gesture he makes (cf. line 2) while he bridges the

gap between the introduction and the topic with a filled pause/hesitation marker. He then continues in line 3 with the main

topic, which is headed by lets see. That introduces the answers to a list of yes/no questions which he apparently reads off a

piece of paper. Both theaddressing of a concrete personand theprepared topic outline facilitate thespeakers performance of

the beginning of the vlog.

The title also points to the fact that the whole vlog is a unit of interaction, i.e. the answer to a question. Re: is

automatically added to the title of a video if it is uploaded as a video response. Thus this instantiates a type of interaction

where the basic unit is not a turn, but a whole video, which could of course be interpreted as a multi-unit turn.

5.1.3. Example containing term of address, self-identification, date

Example 3 was posted by a male American in his late fifties.

Dollar, Paul Krugman

1 everyone,

2 its Peter Schiff,

3 this is Tuesday.. uh March sixteenth two thousand and ten.

4 well,

5 the Dollar was broadly weaker today,6 uh,

This example starts with a term of address everyone (line 1), followed by self identification (line 2). Only 3 vlogs out of 41

contain a term of address but no greeting, cf. section on procedure. In line 3, the vlogger states the date of the video

production, mentioning the day of the week and, after a short hesitation, the date. The transition from these three elements

to the first topic is instantiated by the discourse marker well (line 4). The first three lines are the regular beginning this

vlogger uses to introduce most of his vlogs, which usually cover political topics. The date cannot only be found in the video

description that is automatically generated on the website, but also in the (written) title of this vlog. The additional mention

of the date in the spoken part would seemredundant if the only function was to informviewers of the date. As giving the date

is part of the vloggers fixed routine, however it also stresses thetopicality with which he discusses events. Moreover, it lends

the vlog the character of professional journalism.

5.1.4. Example containing linguistic marker, greeting, term of address, foregrounded objectExample 4 was posted by a female US-American in her fifties. It illustrates two particular features: the use of a linguistic

marker as the first word, and the use of an object to distract the attention.

Althouse #2

1 well-

2 ((laughs))

3 hi vlog fans,

4 uhm,

5 {puts on glasses}

6 8like the glasses,8

7 [{takes glasses off again}]8 [8this time,8]

9 um I was uh,

10 yesterday.

11 uhm,

Before greeting the audience, the speaker uses well as the very first utterance, followed by laughter. This is a boundary

marker indicating the beginning of the vlog. Combined with laughter, it may evince the speakers nervousness in front of the

camera, or her insecurity of how to start the monologue without instant feedback.

The marker well and the laughter do not only mark the transition from the situation before the vlog begins to the

greeting plus term of address; they also mark the fact that this particular vlogger has decided to make this the moment when

she starts recording, though she has no obligation whatsoever to do that.

The greeting and the term of address, both conventional in openings in multi-party conversations, show that she transfers

conventions from another genre into a newgenre. Her choice of term of address, vlog fans (line 3), not only reflects that she



8/14

does not know her audience so that she has to identify them by their function as vlog viewers; it also makes the assumption

that these people are fans. This semi-humorous device seems to have the function of acknowledging the monologue

situation: by saying something that might conceivably be contested, albeit rather harmless, she reminds her viewers of the

obvious situation that they cannot react immediately.

In lines 58 follows an interactive feature in form of a question(the direct gaze into thecamera andthe intonation suggest

that this is a question), like the glasses this time. It is accompanied by the speakers putting on the glasses and taking them off

again. Since the glasses are not used in their normal function to correct her vision, they serve some other purpose in this

sequence. Formally, they constitute the subject of a mini sequence that is inserted between the greeting (line 3) and the first

topic of the vlog (line 9ff). The distraction caused by the glasses is presumably a device that the vlogger uses to postpone the

main body of talk in order to familiarize herself with the situation.

The added this time (line 8) suggests that there has been a previous occasion involving glasses. It can be speculated that

the vlogger has received comments about her glasses (written comments via YouTube or through other channels of

communication) that she acknowledges in turn. As in example 5.1.2, this reflects the interactivity and recipient design of

vlogs. The same is true for the following example, where the vlogger explicitly mentions that she has received questions that

she now wants to answer.

5.1.5. Example containing linguistic marker, cuts

In the next passage, editing, especially cutting, plays an important role. This example is by a woman who, after posting

several other videos, is shooting her first vlog. She is a US-American:

HappySlip #1

1 so instead of the usual HappySlip video,

2 I wanted to just connect with you guys,

3 and show you the girl behind the Slip.

4 {cut}

5 Im thinking that one of these vlogs is overdue.

6 just to answer some of the questions that you have,

7 {cut}

8 number one asked question is,

9 are you Filipino.

10 YES I AM. {gestures with paper roll in her hand}

The whole vlog shows no signs of hesitation, nervousness or other struggle with producing a monologue on camera.

However, a regular and salient feature is the frequent cuts, which probably helped eliminate all features that would have

rendered the vlog less fluent.

The first three lines, up to the first cut, and lines 5 and 6, up to the second cut, introduce the vlog by way of mentioning its

purpose (to connect) and an outline of its contents (answer questions).

These lines are headed by the discourse marker so. Based on the intonation (level) and the inclusion into the intonation

unit that constitutes line 1, I assume that this so originally bracketed two units of talk. It is a marker of result rather than a

boundary markerindicatingthe beginningof thevlog.Thus,the vloggermade an editorial decisionthat violates theconventions

of regular talk, creating a situation where viewers of the vlog get the impression that they have missed the beginning.

In lines 6 and 8, the vlogger mentions viewers questions, and in line 9 she quotes the question she receives most

frequently: are you Filipino. She subsequently answers that question in line 10. Thus, this example instantiates interaction

between a vlogger and her audience. Her taking up questions, quoting them as direct speech, and answering them clearly

indicates that vlogs are geared towards an audience. Discussing topics that are relevant to the audience is an incentive tocontinue watching the vlog.

5.1.6. Example containing cut, linguistic marker

Example 5 is by the same vlogger that posted example 4.

Watching Hillary.

1 -nd I uh::

2 so I tried to do a little shopping,

3 didnt really get the shopping done,

4 uuuh didnt have any shopping to GET done.

5 I just didnt feel in the mood to shop,

6 I went to my favorite sto:re,



9/14

7 nothing.. nothing.. uh called out to me=

8 =as needing to be added to my... wardrobe.

9 ((laughs))

The first line is headed by a discourse marker -nd, and it is aborted after the subject. Again, this marker indicates that there

was previous talk which fell victim to an editorial decision. In this case the editing of the video is foregrounded in that the

beginning of the word and is not even audible. Hence, the vlog starts in the middle of a word. Line 2 is then a completed

utterance, which is also headed by a discourse marker, so. This utterance is a repair of the incomplete and I uh:: in line 1.Whether that repair took place because the speaker realized so was a more appropriate organizational marker than and

in that context, or whether she started out to say something completely different which she then discarded cannot be

determined. But still, the editors decision to keep the first line in the video reflects that she considers it a good place to start

the vlog, perhaps because it is a good entry into that particular unit or topic, even though viewers end up feeling that they

have missed a bit. From an editors point of view, she might even have retrospectively assigned that whole unit and I uh:: a

new function, i.e. that of a boundary marker that marks the beginning of the vlog.

5.1.7. Example containing none of the elements

None of the elements that regularly occur in vlogs are present at the beginningof the followingexample (greeting, term of

address, linguistic marker, self-identification). Furthermore, no signs can be found that anypreviouspart of the video footage

is missing. In other words, there are no ties to foregoing talk or footage. This example is by a woman who presents a comedic

vlog about the possibility of clouds as presidential candidate:

fuck all you cloud haters

1 what really pisses me off is that no one understands that clouds are the only possible good president there

could ever be.

2 no president.. in history has been able to float through the sky?

3 okay?

4 neither Obama nor Clinton NOR MCCAIN.. are cumulus?

5 {cut}

6 theyre not stratus?

7 theyre not cirrus?

8 okay.. motherfuckers?

This passage starts with a complete grammatical sentence, including a wh- cleft and four clauses. There are no breath groups

or other signs of spontaneous spoken language. This may change in the lines afterwards. However, the opening sentence

sounds like the speaker either composed it beforehand, or even practiced it. This absence of features of spoken language

makes the speaker appear determined and strongly opinionated, which is in accordance with the angry expression on her

face as well as the exaggerated use of offensive language. Given the unrealistic subject of her vlog, it is obvious that the

speaker is not in a serious mode, butthat she is displaying fake anger.As a means of stressingthe (pretense) immediacy of her

concern, she chooses to skip the opening sequence.

5.2. Variations from established, personal openings

Established, idiosyncratic phrases or behavioral patterns are an important part of some vloggers routines. Zipster, cf. ex.

1, for example, uses the introductory phrase Hey YouTubers, its me, Zipster in almost all of the videos he posts online. He

deviates from his routine when acting as a different character, using another phrase. As of date, Zipster has uploaded over840 videos to his profile page. Out of 20 randomly picked vlogs in which he appears as the character Zipster, 15 contain the

established opening. 4 contain a variation, and 1 does not adhere to the pattern at all.

The following example illustrates a seemingly unplanned alternate of his usual pattern caused by a distracting noise.

Often these atypical openings contain an allusion to the vloggers typical opening or draw on them as a resource of humor. At

times, the established introductory phrases are simply postponed to a later point in the video.

More random thanks

1 Zipster: [((laughs))]

2 voice: [yahoo mail,]

3 Zipster: yahoo mail, {bends over towards camera,}

4 Jesus Christ. {turns down speaker volume}

5 firstest thihi

ng in the daha

mn video.



10/14

6 hey YouTubers its me Zipster.

7 I gotta tell you.

8 I wasnt even gonna do a video tonight,

This opening sequence starts out as expected with laughter, but the usual sequence is disturbed. The interruptive voice in

line 2 is an automated sound alert that notifies the user of this email provider that a new email message just arrived: yahoo

mail. Zipster takes that up immediately by repeating the exact line yahoo mail, which is followed by Jesus Christ,

expressing annoyance at the disturbance. At the same time Zipster turns down the volume of his speakers to prevent furtherincoming messages from interrupting him. The immediacy of his verbal and physical reactions suggests that this situation

has occurred before, and that Zipster is following a strategy developed in response to it. This sound alert occurs in other

videos by Zipster and is therefore known to regular viewers of his vlogs. Zipster even sometimes thematizes that alert and

the disruption it causes by addressing the voice (e.g. by answering thank you, Christine or shut up, Christine where he

personifies the pre-recorded voice of an unknown person by giving it a name). Thus we can assume that there is a shared

history between Zipster and his viewers that he presupposes when he says firstest thing in the damn video in line 5. He can

rely on the viewers to understand who is talking and why, and that he finds that interruptionundesirable. The form firstest

possibly goes back to the first vlogs he posted, where his character was supposed to portray a mentally retarded person

whose use of ungrammatical forms and mispronunciations is very prominent. This and the laugh pulses in thing and

damn signal that he is in a less serious mode than his wording might suggest.

It is important to remember that vloggers have two phases of production: first the actual uttering of their intonation units,

andsecondly the editingprocess. Thus, vloggers cango back in time andtake backor alter what they saidby cuttingand deleting

scenes. Here, Zipster chooses to leave three intonation units (lines 35), that are clearly deviant from his usual pattern, in thevlog. They show him ina situation where hebrieflyloses histemper orpretendsto doso. Onlyafterwards does heproceedwith

his regular introductory pattern, namely in line 6 hey YouTubers its me Zipster which he utters with a clearly altered voice.

The vloggersdecision to leave this passage in thevlog insteadof cuttingor reshootingthe scene indicates that Zipster assumes

that something can be gained from it at the cost of being inconsistent with his well-established characteristic opening.

In the analysis of this vlog opening, but especially in the three intonation units 35, identity constructionis a salient issue.

The viewers see an irascible Zipster who is prompted into swearing for a brief spell. This introduces humor (cf. laughter

pulses in line 5) as a strategy to mend the pattern and return to the usual opening sequence. At the same time, Zipster

establishes another recurrent (though unplanned) element of his vlogs, namely the prerecorded message spoken by a voice

he calls Christine. Instead of turning off the speaker before taping the vlog, he retains the element of surprise, which allows

him to digress and possibly introduce humor. Also, this makes the whole vlog look less structured and less professional. This

feature allows for interaction, and it introduces a second character with a certain will of its own, since it is not directly

manipulated by Zipster himself. A situation where one has to react spontaneously can help the production of an entertaining

monologue insofar as it makes it less monotonous.Considering both levels of production allows for a further distinction. In this case, the interruption was not planned

(though not prevented either) at the level of speech production since email messages come in unexpectedly and hence also

the sound alerts. However, at the level of editing there was a clear decision to retain the interruption in the video. The next

example also illustrates a deviation from an established pattern.

The vlogger is a female US-American in her late twenties. She is preparing to watch a live video broadcast while filming

herself for the vlog. The phrase she regularly starts her vlogs with is hello everyone its Katie again.

On YouTube Live

(music sequence with images of thevlogger, her dog, a painting,noodles;the user name k80blog! appears at the endin

orange letters)

1 okay.

2 so this YouTube live is gonna start in one minute.3 and.. hello everyone its Katie again.

4 and this this uh YouTube live event,

5 of the uhm of our lives really.

6 uh it- it seems to be- the way YouTube has advertized it=

7 =its going to be... hisTORic.

8 uhm.

9 the wa:y theyre going to.. IMitate television=

10 =its really going to be historic.

This vlog starts with opening credits and music. The background images show entities that regularly appear in this users

vlogs. It reminds one of opening credits of TV series, where images of familiar characters and places are shown to a signature

melody with episode title shown on screen.



11/14

K80blog opens with a variation of her usual opening sequencein that thefirst two intonation units make it seem like she

is going to start thevlog without introducingherself or greetingthe audience at all. All sheputs in front of the main topic is

two markers okayand so. Thefirst,okayis a boundarymarker.It marksthe boundary betweena pre-posedsequence

of music to the sequence that shows the vlogger during speech production. It is not a discourse marker according to

Schiffrins (1987) definition, which states that discourse markers bracket units of talk, since there clearly is no foregoing

talk.

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), referring to classroom talk, note that the boundaries of what they call transactions are

typically marked by frames, a category which comprises five items: okay, well, right, now, and good. They say about

teachers talk that a frame invariably occurs at the beginning of a lesson, marking off the settling-down time. In the

teachers monologic passages, these frames often co-occur with so-called foci, as Sinclair and Coulthards example

demonstrates:

frame well

focus today I thought wed do three quizzes

They argue that this sort of topic introduction is typical of classroom discourse as opposed to conversation outside such

settings because of the distribution of control that allows a teacher to decide on a topic or an activity. Vloggers are in a similar

situation: as they are the only speakers, the choice of topic is completely up to them. Unlike the teacher in the classroom

situation though, the vloggers viewers can turn off the video at any time during the vlog. Thus, vloggers would probably do

well not to stress their control of topic too much. This way, the viewers sense of voluntary participation is preserved, a

feature lacking in classroom discourse. The downside of that control for both vloggers and teachers is the obligation to fill aturn that often exceeds the usual turn length in multi-party conversations by far. Given these similarities, it is not surprising

that individuals in such situations develop similar strategies.

So, which is at the head of the second intonation unit (line 2), serves to reintroduce a topic that has apparently been

discussed before. This is indicated by the use of the demonstrative determiner this, which presupposes common

knowledge. It is a matter of speculation whether that knowledge derives from previous multi-party interaction or just from

the title of the vlog (On YouTube Live). The topic is an event that is central to many vloggers because they themselves,

namely the active users of the website YouTube, are its subject. K80blog uses a context which is the sum of experience of all

kinds of interaction that has taken place among the vlogger community about YouTube Live. Thus, on the local, sequential

plane, so links two units of talk. On a global level, or in this case a super-global level, it links back to discourse that might

have taken place in a different setting, through different media, where K80blog might have been just a passive listener etc.

The vlogger makes an implicit assumption about her audience, namely that there is a collective experience that enables the

viewers to understand what she is referring to.

The next line finally provides the element that usually comes right at the beginning of K80blogs videos: and.. helloeveryone its Katie again. It is headed by marker and, another discourse marker. The switch from the introduction of

the topic in lines 1 and 2 to the prefabricated opening in line 3 is accompanied by a shift in her facial expression. It

changes from a somewhat serious mode to an open friendly smile exactly when she utters and while slightly shifting

her head from right to left (viewers perspective). Thus, the shift from main topic talk to introductory intermission that is

verbally enacted by a discourse marker is underscored multimodally by shifts in expression and posture. The lexical

choice of and as shift facilitator (rather than so) is interesting in that it seems to be completely devoid of its

grammatical role (Schiffrin, 2001) as a conjunction, as it occurs between two elements that are structurally not just

different, but incommensurable.

Finally, in line 4 there is a shift back to the topic introduced in the first two lines. Likewise, the facial expression gradually

goes back to a more serious mode. Again, she uses the discourse marker and to realize that shift, which, this time, fits better

into the syntactic context.

6. Conclusion

In this paper I have presented and analyzed various opening sequences in vlogs. I have shown how speakers manage to

deal with the self-imposed task of producing a monologue on camera, and especially how they handle the transition from

what happens before the vlog begins to the initial verbal expressions in the video. Speakers on vlogs use different strategies

in their openings, which can be verbal or non-verbal. These strategies include linguistic means such as recognizablepatterns,

or the use of other media (computerized voice), non-verbal distractive devices (showing glasses), which can trigger side-

sequences, and video editing. Vlogs include interactive elements such as questions, greetings, and terms of address, which

are borrowed from dialogic genres or conventionalized monologues. These phenomena are evidence of audience design,

which underlies the production of most monologic media talk.

The use of these strategies results in a categorization of vlog openings. The main distinction is that between openings that

follow a users idiosyncratic pattern, and thus appear in the majority of that vloggers videos, and those that do not rely on

such a routine. As this is not a structural distinction (openings from either category could have the exact same structure, e.g.

greeting, term of address, self-identification), it requires studying several vlogs by the same user.



12/14

The following are my conclusions regarding monologues: Assuming that dialogue is the default setting for spoken

interaction the mode in which language is first acquired and most frequently used monologue, in being reduced to the

productive part of dialogic conversation and stripped of the receptive part, should be more difficult, or at least different than

face-to-face conversation. The suspension of turn taking disallows all standard formulaic exchange patterns that involve

sequencing, unless the speaker uses incomplete forms, or impersonates both speakers. Thus, the observation that speakers

employ alternative, adapted strategies in monologues is not surprising. The fixed introductory phrases I have presented

remind one of conversational openings from other genres (TV, radio, answering machine messages, etc.), which can be very

ritualistic as well. Editing, which constitutes the second phase of language production in vlogs, allows for strategies that

would be very difficult to realize in other monologic genres: cutting off parts of words or phrases, or moving elements to

initial position that, when they were first uttered, served as brackets between two units. Monologues in vlogs also display

elements that are employed in other monologic genres: greetings and terms of address occur (cf. news reports), and so do

boundary markers/frames (cf. classroom talk, lectures). Furthermore, multimodal features such as shifts in gaze, facial

expression and posture support the vloggers verbal output.

Regarding openings, one can conclude that in vlogs, standard conversational openings such as question/answer- and

summons/answer-pairs do not work. On the other hand, alternate conversational elements such as terms of address and self

identification work and occur. What is interesting with regard to openings in general is that some vloggers try to

conventionalize them and turn them into routines. Others completely deny a need for an introductory phase, so that they do

not establish personalized routine formulae. Why there are different strategies to begin a vlog, and which one a vlogger

chooses, ultimately reflects pragmatic and sociolinguistic variation: speakers use different degrees of formality, choose

different registers, address different imagined audiences, discuss different topics, have different aims, have different socio-

economic backgrounds, etc. Some vloggers possibly have introductory phases to prepare their viewers for topics discussed

and create a sense of completeness of the vlog as a unit, to justify their discussing it in the first place (this also occurs at the

ends of vlogs with phrases like I just thought Id share this with you). Viewer feedback in forms of comments and ratings

probably play a role when a vlogger designs their vlog content so that it passes as tellable. Others, by leaving out a formal

introduction, perhaps seek to create a sense of immediacy.

The fact that some users do have an introductory phrase, even though negotiation of factors such as availability for

interaction, identification, social status, and alignment of participants does not take place in vlogs, suggests some functions

of vlog openings. It reflects that some vloggers have an imagined audience in mind that they are addressing, which might be

helpful in the process of producing a monologue to a camera. It also acts as incentive for the audience to understand the vlog

as part of an asymmetric, asynchronous interaction, inviting the viewers to respond via the communicative channels that

YouTube offers. An interesting avenuefor future research would be to compare theimpact of vlogs with andwithout opening

phrase, in terms of the interaction they initiate. Such research could be conducted for example by comparing the number of

views, comments, video responses and the ratings. However, since these features reflect back on the complete video, not just

the opening sequence, it would be very difficult to isolate that variable.

Regarding the medium vlog as part of CMC, we can say the following: Why people engage in an activity that seems

more demanding than other pastimes is a matter of speculation. An initial explanation is that these monologues reaching

a potentially large audience are an ideal ground for representation of the self, creation of a persona, or generally the

construction of identity. Many vloggers state in metareferential comments about their hobby that they like the

interaction and the community. Clearly, the written comments users can make below a video and other features of the

website are used extensively by vloggers and viewers to communicate and create identities. The fact that this happens

online allows users to establish relationships with people that are physically so far distant that they would generally not

meet offline. As part of these relationships, vloggers and their viewers develop recurrent topics and thus establish

common knowledge. Hence, in vlogs there is exophoric reference to both common world knowledge and very specific

community based knowledge.

More research on vlog openings is required to illuminate what functions these sequences fulfill. Such research should

reveal more about the use of terms of address, which were only touched upon in passing here. Also the occurrence of silences

and pauses at the beginning of vlogs should result in interesting insights into monologues (cf. silence/pauses in lectures).

Observing vlog openings over time will also reveal whether there is a tendency to establish general conventions for the

genre, such as fixed phrases that are used by all vloggers. Research on gestures in monologue could surely be further

expanded with the present video data as well. Further research might focus on endings of vlogs and complete vlogs to reveal

opening sequences

i a) sequence containing a combination of any of the following

features: opening credits, greeting, term of address,

self-identification, linguistic markers, cuts, distractive devices

! i b) comparing several vlogs by the same

vlogger reveals the class of prefabricated,

established personal openings

i c) once a user has established their personal

opening phrase, they can use variations on it

ii vlog opening containing none of the above listed elements



13/14

for example how these spontaneous monologues are structured. Similarly, this research could shed light on how the use of

terms of address and direct address mirrors expectations vloggers have about their audience. Clearly, much work remains to

be done on this fairly new, audio-visual CMC genre.

Appendix A. Transcription conventions

shes out. Period shows falling tone in the preceding element; suggesting finality.

oh yeah? Question mark shows rising tone in the preceding element; cf. yes-no question intonation

so, now, Comma indicates a level, continuing intonation; suggesting nonfinality.

bu- but A single dash indicates a cutoff (often with a glottal stop); including truncated

intonation units.

DAMN Capitals show heavy stress or indicate that speech is louder than surrounding discourse.

8dearest8 Utterances spoken more softly than the surrounding discourse are framed by degree signs.

says oh Double quotes mark speech set off by a shift in the speakers voice.

(2.0) Numbers in parentheses indicate timed pauses.

If the duration of the pauses is not crucial and not timed:

.. a truncated ellipsis is used to indicate pauses of one-half second or less.

... An ellipsis is used to indicate a pause of more than a halfsecond.

ha:rd The colon indicates the prolonging of the prior sound or syllable.

Angle brackets pointing outward denote words or phrases that are spoken more

slowly than the surrounding discourse.

>watch out< Angle brackets pointing inward indicate words or phrases spoken more quickly

than surrounding discourse.

[and so-]

[WHY] her? Square brackets on successive lines mark beginning and end of overlapping talk;

multiple overlap is marked by aligning the brackets.

and=

=then Equal signs on successive lines show latching between turns of different speakers;they can also indicate that the turn of one speaker continues after e.g. backchannels

of interlocutors.

H Clearly audible breath sounds are indicated with a capital H.

.h Inhalations are denoted with a period, followed by a small h. Longer inhalations are

depicted with multiple hs as in .hhhh

h Exhalations are denoted with a small h (without a preceding period). A longer

exhalation is denoted by multiple hs.

.t Alveolar suction click

( ) In the case that utterances cannot be transcribed with certainty empty parentheses

are employed

(hard work) If there is a likely interpretation, the questionable words appear within the parentheses./ / slashes are used for phonetic transcriptions

((laugh)) Aspects of the utterance, such as whispers, coughing, and laughter, are indicated with

double parentheses.

{points at board} Nonverbal behavior, such as movements and looks, and video editing, such as cuts,

are indicated with braces.

Numbering conventions: Number each intonation unit consecutively (e.g. from 1 to n).



14/14

References

Aijmer, Karin, 2007. Idiomaticity in a cultural and activity type perspective conventionalisation of routine phrases. In: Skandera, Paul (Ed.), Phraseologyand Culture in English (Topics in English Linguistics). de Gruyter, New York, pp. 323349.

Clark, Herbert H., 1996. Using Language. CUP, Cambridge.Duman, Steve, Locher, Miriam, 2008. So lets talk. Lets chat. Lets start a dialog: an analysis of the conversation metaphor employed in Clintons and

Obamas YouTube campaign clips. Multilingua 27, 193230.Ess, Charles, and the AoIR ethics working committee, 2002. Ethical decision-making and Internet research: recommendations from the aoir ethics working

committee, Approved by AoIR, November 27, 2002. www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf.Garrod, Simon, Pickering, Martin, 2004. Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8 (1), 811.

Glick, Douglas, 2007. Some performative techniques of stand-up comedy: an exercise in the textuality of temporalization. Language & Communication 27(3), 291306.

Gold, Ruby, 1991. Answering machine talk. Discourse Processes 14 (2), 243260.Herring,SusanC., Scheidt,Lois Ann,Wright,Elijah,Bonus, Sabrina, 2004. Bridging thegap:a genre analysis of weblogs. In:Proceedingsof theThirty-seventh

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-37). IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, CA.Herring, Susan C., Scheidt, Lois Ann, Wright, Elijah, Bonus, Sabrina, 2005. Weblogs as a bridging genre. Information Technology & People 18 (2), 142171.Horton, Donald R., Wohl, Richard, 1956. Mass communication and para-social interaction: observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry 19, 215229.Labov, William, Fanshel, David, 1977. Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. Academic Press, New York.Laver, John, 1975. Communicative functions of phatic communion. In: Kendon, A., Harris, R., Key, M. (Eds.), The Organization of Behavior in Face-to-face

Interaction. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 215238.Laver, John, 1981. Linguistic routines and politeness in greeting and parting. In: Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Exploration in Standardized

Communication, Situations and Prepatterned Speech. Mouton, The Hague, pp. 289330.Liddicoat, Anthony, 1994. Discourse routines in answering machine communication in Australia. Discourse Processes 17, 283309.Montgomery, Martin, 1981. The Structure of Monologue In: Coulthard, M., Montgomery, M. (Eds.), Studies in Discourse Analysis. Routledge, London, pp.

3339.Rintel, Sean, Mulholland, Joan, Pittam, Jefferey, 2001. First things first: internet relay chat openings. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 6 (3).Scheidt, Lois, 2009.Diary Weblogs as Genre.Retrievedfrom: http://professional-lurker.com/linked/2009/qp/Diary_Weblogs_as_Genre2009.pdf(last access

June 29, 2010).Sinclair, John, Coulthard, Michael, 1975. Toward an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils. OUP, Oxford.Smith, Sara W., Noda, Hiromi Pat, Andrews, Steven, Jucker, Andreas H., 2005. Setting the stage: how speakers prepare listeners for the introduction of

referents in dialogues and monologues. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 18651895.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1967. The First Five Seconds: The Order of Conversational Openings. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California,Berkeley.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1968. Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist 70, 10751095.Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1986. The routine as achievement. Human Studies 9, 111151.Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse Markers. CUP, Cambridge.Schiffrin, Deborah, 2001. Discourse markers: language, meaning, and context. In: Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., Hamilton, H. (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse

Analysis. Oxford, Blackwell, pp. 5475.Tolson, Andrew, 2005. Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Waldvogel, Joan,2007. Greetings and closings in workplace email. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12 (2), In: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/

issue2/waldvogel.html.Wells, Pam, Bull, Peter, 2007. From politics to comedy: a comparative analysis of affiliative audience responses. Journal of Language and Social Psychology

26 (4), 321342.

Data sources:

Example 1: THIS is STUPID!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDPGy0-GXw4

Example 2: Re: Who are you....Who, Who...Who, Who

video removed by user

Example 3: Dollar, Paul Krugman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11WlFlO_mDg

Example 4: Althouse vlog #2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVIZm0-Sqng

Example 5: HappySlip #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmO3voBR3SE&feature=channel_page

Example 6: watching Hillary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2e2uWUqUNo

Example 7: fuck all you cloud haters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDob3bF3pSQExample 8: More random thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiWCiiZGK28

Example 9: On YouTube Live

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKgiEPU_bK8

Maximiliane Frobenius is a research assistant and doctoral student at the Department of English Linguistics at Saarland University, Saarbrcken, Germany. Herfield of research is media English, especially CMC and language on television.

http://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdfhttp://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdfhttp://professional-lurker.com/linked/2009/qp/Diary_Weblogs_as_Genre2009.pdfhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/waldvogel.htmlhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/waldvogel.htmlhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/waldvogel.htmlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDPGy0-GXw4http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11WlFlO_mDghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVIZm0-Sqnghttp://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=CmO3voBR3SE%26feature=channel_pagehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2e2uWUqUNohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDob3bF3pSQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiWCiiZGK28http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKgiEPU_bK8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKgiEPU_bK8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiWCiiZGK28http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDob3bF3pSQhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2e2uWUqUNohttp://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv=CmO3voBR3SE%26feature=channel_pagehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVIZm0-Sqnghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11WlFlO_mDghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDPGy0-GXw4http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/waldvogel.htmlhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue2/waldvogel.htmlhttp://professional-lurker.com/linked/2009/qp/Diary_Weblogs_as_Genre2009.pdfhttp://www.aoir.org/reports/ethics.pdf

Documents

Beginning a Monologue- The Opening Sequence of Video Blogs