Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T21:15:43.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Eating together multimodally: Collaborative eating in mukbang, a Korean livestream of eating

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2019

Hanwool Choe
Hanwool Choe*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Hanwool Choe, Linguistics Department, Georgetown University, 1421 37th Street NW Poulton, Hall 240, Box 571051, Washington, DC 20057-1051, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mukbang is a Korean livestream where a host eats while interacting with viewers. The eater ‘speaks’ to the viewers while eating and the viewers ‘type’ to each other and to the eater through a live chat room. Using interactional sociolinguistics along with insights from conversation analysis (CA) studies, the present study examines how sociable eating is jointly and multimodally achieved in mukbang. Analyzing sixty-seven mukbang clips, I find that mukbang participants coordinate their actions through speech, written text, and embodied acts, and that this coordination creates involvement and, by extension, establishes both community and social agency. Specifically, recruitments are the basic joint action of eating, as participants, who are taking turns, assume footings of the recruit and the recruiter. The host embodies viewers’ text recruitments through embodied animating and puppeteering. As in street performance, the viewers often offer voluntary donations, and the host shows entertaining gratitude in response. (Mukbang, footing, recruitments, agency, involvement, constructed action, multimodal interaction, computer-mediated discourse)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 171 - 208
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

*

This article began as a paper written for seminars taught by Mark Sicoli. I am grateful to him for the feedback he provided at that stage. I am also grateful to Cynthia Gordon and Deborah Tannen for detailed feedback on several revised versions, and to Jen McFadden for editing assistance. I would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor, Jenny Cheshire, for their helpful suggestions. All remaining errors are my own.

References

REFERENCES

AFP/Relaxnews (2013). Meok-bang trend in South Korea turns binge eating into spectator sport. Huffington Post, December. Online: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/12/18/meok-bang-trend_n_4467240.html.Google Scholar
Ahearn, Laura M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology 30:109–37.Google Scholar
Akiyama, Yuka (2016). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System 64:58–73.Google Scholar
Al Zidjaly, Najma (2009). Agency as an interactive achievement. Language in Society 38(2):177–200.Google Scholar
Aoki, Hiromi (2011). Some functions of speaker head nods. In Streeck, Goodwin, & LeBaron, 93–105.Google Scholar
Birdwhistell, Ray L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1993). ‘You gotta know how to tell a story’: Telling, tales, and tellers in American and Israeli narrative events at dinner. Language in Society 22(3):361–402.Google Scholar
Buccini, Anthony F. (2013). Linguistics and food studies: Structural and historical connections. In Albala, Ken (ed.), Routledge international handbook of food studies, 146–58. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Campbell, John Edward (2003). Always use a modem: Analyzing frames of erotic play, performance, and power in cyberspace. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Electronique de Communication 13(1). Online: www.cios.org/www/ejc/v13n1.htm; accessed August 10, 2008.Google Scholar
Choi, Jiwon (2015). South Korea's passion for watching strangers eat goes mainstream. ABC news, April. Online: http://abcnews.go.com/International/south-koreas-passion-watching-strangers-eat-mainstream/story?id=30124160.Google Scholar
Clark, Hubert H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Hubert H. (2006). Social actions, social commitments. In Levinson, Stephen & Enfield, Nick (eds.), Roots of human sociality: Culture, cognition, and human interaction, 126–50. Oxford: Berg Press.Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E., & Heritage, John (2014). Benefactors and beneficiaries: Benefactive status and stance in the management of offers and requests. In Drew, Paul & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 55–86. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (2014). Requesting: From speech act to recruitment. In Drew, Paul & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 1–34. Philadelphia. PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Erickson, Frederick (1982). Money tree, lasagna bush, salt and pepper: Social construction of topical cohesion in a conversation among Italian-Americans. In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text & talk, 43–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Erickson, Frederick, & Shultz, Jeffrey (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interview. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Good, Jeffrey S., & Beach, Wayne A. (2005). Opening up gift-openings: Birthday parties as situated activity systems. Text & Talk 25(5):565–93.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles, & Goodwin, Marjorie H. (2004). Participation. In Duranti, Alessandro (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology, 222–44. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H., & Cekaite, Asta (2014). Orchestrating directive trajectories in communicative projects in family interaction. In Drew, Paul & Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth (eds.), Requesting in social interaction, 185–214. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia (2009). Making meanings, creating family: Intertextuality and framing in family interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia (2015). ‘I would suggest you tell this ^^^ to your doctor’: Online narrative problem-solving regarding face-to-face patient interaction about body weight. In Gygax, Franziska & Locher, Miriam A. (eds.), Narrative matters in medical contexts across disciplines, 117–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia, & İkizoğlu, Didem (2017). ‘Asking for another’ online: Membership categorization and identity construction on a food and nutrition discussion board. Discourse Studies 19(3):253–71.Google Scholar
Gough, Brendan (2007). Real men don't diet: An analysis of contemporary newspaper representations of men, food and health. Social Science & Medicine 62(2):326–37.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies: Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. (2015). New frontiers in interactive multimodal communication. In Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Spilioti, Tereza (eds.), Routledge handbook of language and digital communication, 398–402. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C., & Demarest, Bradford (2017). ‘I'm the first video voicethread–it's pretty sweet, I'm pumped’: Gender and self-expression on an interactive multimodal platform. ALSIC: Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d'information et de Communication 20(1). Online: http://journals.openedition.org/alsic/3007.Google Scholar
Hu, Elise (2015). Koreans have an insatiable appetite for watching strangers binge eat. NPR, June. Online: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/24/392430233/koreans-have-an-insatiable-appetite-for-watching-strangers-binge-eat?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social.Google Scholar
Hua, Zhu; Wei, Li; & Yuan, Qian (2000). The sequential organization of gift offering and acceptance in Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 32:81–103.Google Scholar
Keating, Elizabeth, & Sunakawa, Chiho (2010). Participation cues: Coordinating activity and collaboration in complex online gaming worlds. Language in Society 39(3):331–56.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam (1981). Nonverbal communication, interaction, and gesture. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam (2009). Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., & Drew, Paul (2016). Recruitment: Offers, requests, and the organization of assistance in interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):1–19.Google Scholar
Kim, Sohee, & Lee, Joyce (2014). Korea Inc targets ‘golden singles’ amid consumer slump. Routers, October. Online: http://www.reuters.com/article/southkorea-economy-singles-idUSL3N0R20Z920141029#CjQcMyeFCPjQXImO.97.Google Scholar
MacMartin, Clare; Coe, Jason B.; & Adams, Cindy L. (2014). Treating distressed animals as participants: I know responses in veterinarians’ pet-directed talk. Research on Language and Social Interaction 47(2):151–74.Google Scholar
Mapes, Gwynne E. (2015). The construction of an elite-middle class: Foodie discourse in Bon Appétit Magazine. Washington, DC: Georgetown University master's thesis.Google Scholar
Morrow, Phillip R. (2012). Online advice in Japanese: Giving advice in an internet discussion forum. In Limberg, Holger & Locher, Miriam A. (eds.), Advice in discourse, 255–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Roberts, Felicia (2004). Speaking to and for animals in a veterinary clinic: A practice for managing interpersonal interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(4):421–46.Google Scholar
Robles, Jessica S. (2012). Troubles with assessments in gifting occasions. Discourse Studies 14(6):753–77.Google Scholar
Rosaldo, Michelle Z. (1982). The things we do with words: Ilongot speech acts and speech act theory in philosophy. Language in Society 11:203–37.Google Scholar
Sicoli, Mark A. (2018). Saying and doing in Zapotec: Language and joint actions in a Oaxacan village. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, ms.Google Scholar
Scheflen, Albert E. (1972). Body language and the social order. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Stommel, Wyke (2008). Conversation analysis and community of practice as approaches to studying online community. Language@Internet 5(5). Online: http://www.languageatinternet.org/articles/2008/1537.Google Scholar
Streeck, Jürgen; Goodwin, Charles; & LeBaron, Curtis (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szatrowski, Polly E. (2014). Language and food: Verbal and non-verbal experiences. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In Coulmas, Florian (ed.), Direct and indirect speech, 311–32. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (1989/2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (2004). Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language and Social Interaction 37(4):399–420.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo (2015). Multimodality. In Tannen, Deborah, Hamilton, Heidi, & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Handbook of discourse analysis, 447–65. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vásquez, Camilla, & Chik, Alice (2015). ‘I am not a foodie’: Culinary capital in online reviews of Michelin restaurants. Food and Foodways 23(4):231–50.Google Scholar
Ware, Paige D., & Kramsch, Claire (2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. The Modern Language Journal 89(2):190–205.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Sally (2002). Talking with your mouth full: Gustatory mmms and the embodiment of pleasure. Research on Language and Social Interaction 35(3):311–36.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Sally (2013). The social life of ‘eugh’: Disgust as assessment in family mealtimes. British Journal of Social Psychology 52(3):489–509.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Sally (2014). Family mealtimes, yuckiness and the socialization of disgust responses by preschool children. In Polly E. Szatrowski (ed.), Language and food: Verbal and nonverbal experiences, 211–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wiggins, Sally; Potter, Jonathan; & Wildsmith, Aimee (2001). Eating your words: Discursive psychology and the reconstruction of eating practices. Journal of Health Psychology 6(1):5–15.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele (2014). Coffeetweets: Bonding around the bean on Twitter. In Seargeant, Philip & Tagg, Caroline (eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the internet, 139–60. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zinken, Jörg, & Rossi, Giovanni (2016). Assistance and other forms of cooperative engagement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 49(1):20–26.Google Scholar