<!-- image -->

## Viewing, listening and reading along: Linguistic and multimodal constructions of viewer participation in the net series SKAM

Elisabeth Muth A  ndersen University of Southern Denmark

Søren Vigild Poulsen University of Southern Denmark

## Abstract

Th is  paper investigates how SKAM viewers are positioned as participants through semiotic resources in the net series, i.e. the fi  lmic means for making meaning, including representations of the characters' embodied and digitally mediated communication. For  this  purpose,  we  combine  perspectives  from  linguistic-multimodality  studies of  modes  for  communication  and  studies  building  on  Goff  man's  (1981)  work  on participation frameworks, i.e. the various ways of participating in co-present and/or mediated communication.

Th e article aims to complement existing media studies of immediacy in SKAM and viewers'  sense  of  co-presence  with  characters  in  the  net  series  (Jerslev,  2017, Sundet, 2017). It does so by showing how participant frameworks are multimodally constructed at a fi  ctional level and a communicational level. Within each of these frameworks, the viewer is positioned in distinct ways. We describe how the viewer is placed, i.e. physically positioned, in the interactional space of the depicted characters, and  how  the  characters'  communicative  means  are  interactionally  organised, accomplished and made available for interpretation by the viewer. Furthermore, we show how characters monitor each other in the shared space of a schoolyard, how embodied  and  digitally  mediated  communicative  features  are  foregrounded,  and how the viewer is provided access to these resources in ways that refl  ect and create specifi  c viewing positions in the communicative frames of the characters.

We argue that these integrations of semiotic modes exploit aff  ordances related to speech, writing and embodiment, that the positionings mainly work to create a sense of presence and identifi  cation for the viewer, and that representations of digitally mediated communication (writing) on the viewer's screen specifi  cally expose how the digitally mediated communication space of one of the characters is integrated with the digitally mediated viewing space.

Keywords:  Participant  frameworks,  semiotic  resources,  social  interaction,  viewer position

## 1. Introduction

Th e net series SKAM has been studied in terms of how it relates to and attracts viewers. Kann-Rasmussen and Balling (2017) point out that the use of the internet as a distribution platform, the distribution of small clips in ways that imitate real time and the fact that the distribution time has not been announced in advance, as well as the use of social media in relation to SKAM off  er ways for viewers to participate, for example by providing access to public discussions about topics related to SKAM and by providing more information about the characters than is accessible in the clips themselves. Sundet (2017) outlines narrative devices used in SKAM to establish emotional investments for viewers and suggests that, besides the use of reel time and social media to distribute clips and information about the characters on various platforms which aff  ord active participation from SKAM viewers, SKAM is a character-driven drama which invites viewers to take the perspective of the main character. Jerslev (2017) focuses on how a sense of presence and immediacy in the here and now is invited through audio-visual strategies of the production. In terms of time, Jerslev suggests that the written indications of time that clips are initiated with and that match the distribution time as well as the unpredictability in terms of the distribution time are devices to create presence for the viewer. Th is means, as Jerslev (2017) points out, that the viewers cannot prepare for the event in advance and this contributes to inviting an intense viewing event. In terms of place, Jerslev (2017) suggests that close-ups are used as a strategy to create immediacy.  Supplementing  Sundet  (2017)'s  point  that  SKAM  is  characterdriven, Jerslev (2017) observes that viewers are oft  en presented with talking and listening faces. She also notes that camera techniques are used to focus on one face and blur the other when a dialogue is presented (2017:78). Th ereby, viewers are invited to focus on facial expressions and movements of particular characters.

Th is  paper  elaborates  on  existing  studies  of  SKAM  by  showing  that multiple forms of participation, in which the viewer is positioned in diff  erent ways,  are  presented  simultaneously  in  a  scene  from  the  series,  and  how these  are  constructed  with  distinct  modes  of  communication.  Th is  study therefore  approaches  SKAM  from  a  linguistic  and  multimodal  perspective and investigates how viewers are invited to participate in a specifi  c viewing situation. We draw on the concept of 'participation frameworks' coined by Goff  man which, among other things, is used to outline two communication frameworks  for  TV  fi  ction  in  recent  publications  (e.g.  Brock  2015,  Dynel 2011,  Messerli  2017);  the  fi  ctitious  framework  that  includes  the  depicted characters  and  the  real  communicative  framework  comprising the creators and the viewers connected through the depicted drama.

Using this  framework, we intend to show how viewers of SKAM are invited to participate in the viewing of SKAM on two levels: a fi  ctitious level and a real level (Brock 2015); we describe and analyse how a participation role is constructed for the viewer on each level by the production crew using fi   lm resources and depictions of characters' interaction, and we argue that the methodical and extensive use and coordination of semiotic modes on both levels anchor the viewer both physically and socially in the setting and thereby invite a sense of immediacy and co-presence on the viewer's part as previously described in media studies of SKAM.

## 2. Viewer participation in telecinematic discourse: A linguistic and multimodal perspective

Th is  paper  investigates  viewer  participation  in  the  telecinematic  discourse in SKAM from a linguistic point of view (Dynel 2011, Messerli 2017). Th e concept  of  telecinematic  discourse  refers  to  'the  language  of  cinema  and television' (Piazza et al. 2011:1) investigated not only in terms of the characters' verbal dialogues, but as 'integrated multimodal (verbal and visual) fi  ctional narratives' (Piazza et al. 2011:1).

Participation  is  a  central  topic  of  investigation  within  pragmatics  of fi  ction  (Jucker  &  Locher,  2017).  Fiction  involves  complex  communicative acts (i.e. the cultural artefacts) that connect a creator and a recipient. Several models to illustrate participation structures in telecinematic discourse have been suggested (Brock 2015, Bubel 2008, Dynel 2011). Th e models have in common that they rely on Goff  man's concept of 'participation framework' (Goff  man 1981:137) and that they suggest to describe participation structures of telecinematic discourse in terms of two communicative levels. According to Dynel's (2011) terminology, level 1 includes communication between the characters in which everyday-type participation roles are oft  en represented (Brock  2015:30),  and  level  2  includes  the  use  of  cinematic  and  discursive strategies by members of the fi  lm crew including e.g. scriptwriting, editing and shooting. All participants that contribute to the production are referred to as 'the collective sender' . In level 2 the communication between the characters in level 1 is included as the resource(s), and the TV viewer (and listener) is referred  to  as  the  'recipient'  (Dynel  2011:1632),  used  here  as  a  technical and theoretical term. We, however, use the term 'viewer' instead since the term recipient may also be used to refer to participant roles in the fi  ctitious participant  framework  of  the  characters  when  someone  is  the  recipient  of talk. Apart from these participants, Dynel suggests a role of 'metarecipient' (2011:1633) which refers to participants who use metalanguage and specialist terminology to describe the media product.

Each level described above involves specifi  c participants and may be referred to  as  'participant  frameworks'  (Goff  man  1981:137).  Goff  man  coined  the concept  which  'refers  to  the  range  of  ways  that  persons  within  perceptual range of an utterance are able to position themselves in relation to it' (Hutchby 2014:87). Originally the term was mainly used for spoken utterances, but it is  now also used for mediated interaction and includes participants within ''perceptual range' of written or otherwise mediated linguistic emissions' too (2014:87). For each of the two communicative levels, participants and their possibilities for participation using communicative means can be identifi  ed.

Further, participation roles can  be  described  for all participants according to every utterance or action being produced, and their participation statuses are accomplished locally through actions of all participants.

In terms of participation status related to speaking, Goff  man distinguishes three roles: that of 'animator' , 'author' and 'principal' (Goff  man 1981:144). Th e animator vocalises the utterance, the author formulates it, and the principal is the one whose beliefs are expressed through the speech. In ordinary interaction, speakers perform all three roles much of the time, but in some types of social interaction it is not always the case. Th at applies, for example, to interview situations in which interviewers may perform the role of animator of questions formulated by others and expressing the beliefs or intentions of others (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 2000). Th e three roles that comprise the 'production format' (Goff  man 1981:145) of speaking may also be used to  describe speech in fi  lm and TV fi  ction; Messerli (2017:32) suggests that actors animate speech formulated by creators/producers and that the scripted nature of the interaction in fi  ction explains diff  erences in turn-taking when comparing with spontaneous naturally occurring speech (for a comparison, see Chepinchikj & Th ompson 2016).

Participation  frameworks,  of  course,  also  include  hearer  roles.  As with  speaker  roles,  hearer  roles  are  accomplished  in  interaction;  a  hearer may be treated and treat him/herself as an 'addressee' , as a non-addressed 'third party' or as an 'overhearer' (Goff  man 1981:132). Whereas speakers, addressed  recipients  and  co-present  third  parties  are  ratifi  ed  participants which  is  mutually  accomplished  through  joint  engagement  in  interaction (Goff  man  1981:130),  overhearers  are  treated  as  non-ratifi  ed  participants, i.e.  'nonparticipants'  (Dynel  2011:1629).  When  co-participants  are  aware of an overhearer's presence, the overhearer's participant role is referred to as 'bystander' (Goff  man 1981:132), and when the interactants are not aware of his or her presence, he or she is referred to as an 'eavesdropper' according to the Goff  manian terminology (Dynel 2011, Goff  man 1981:132).

A  central  question  within  research  on  participant  roles  in  telecinematic discourse concerns the status of the viewer (Brock 2015:28). As mentioned, viewers are referred to by Dynel (2011) as 'recipients' , arguing that viewers are  ratifi  ed  recipients  since  the  collective  senders  produce  the  cultural artefact for them and therefore should not be viewed as overhearers or even eavesdroppers. Th is applies to level 2 in Dynel's model referred to above, i.e. the  real  communication  between  the  collective  sender  and  the  viewers  as recipients. Brock (2015:32) suggests that a fi  ctitious participation slot is also constructed for the viewer in the inter-character participation framework in level 1 in genres of standard comedies which he considers. He suggests that camera distance, height and focus imitate the position of someone present and that, since the camera is tolerated but largely ignored, the camera resembles a  natural  overhearer.  Brock  (2015)  also  notes  that  this  is  a  collaborative achievement:  A  position  is  constructed  for  the  viewer  using  cinematic resources, but the viewer must play along and suspend disbelief in order for this to work. Messerli (2017:38) provides a similar observation, namely that viewers may imagine becoming immersed in the fi  ctional layer as a present overhearer (level 1), while at the same time appreciating the underlying layers that make the construction possible (level 2).

Shots  depict  fi  ctitious  characters  in  specifi  c  settings  which  means  that  the viewer  is  positioned  relative  to  the  characters  and  the  social  setting  they are  depicted  in.  Hence,  cinematic  resources  may  be  used  to  create  a  sense of  presence  for  the  viewer  in  the  setting  of  the  characters.  According  to IJsselsteijn and Riva (2003), presence can be divided into physical and social presence, and at the intersection of these two categories we have 'co-presence or a sense of being together in a shared space' (2003:7). In order to describe the  cinematic  resources  used  to  establish  experiences  of  participation  and presence for the viewer in SKAM, we therefore consider both the imitations of physical positioning of the viewer through camera work, which may imitate physical presence, and how the viewer is provided access to social interaction between the characters, which may support the sense of physical presence and also imitate social presence, thereby creating a sense of co-presence for the viewer.

Th e  imitations  of  physical  positioning  of  viewers  through  camera placement  and  settings  as  well  as  the  placement  and  movements  of  the depicted characters' bodies relative to it indicate and imitate bodily distances. In  interpersonal  communication,  specifi  c  physical  distances  between  the participants provide access to particular types of communicative resources and information about the participants. Physical distance matters, for example, in terms of access to speech, visual monitoring of co-participants, possibilities of  sensing  smell  and  using  touch  as  a  resource  in  social  interaction.  Th ese associations are also used in visual mass media such as TV . Hjarvard (2002), citing Hall (Hall 1959, 1966), notes that specifi  c distances between people are associated with basic meaning. Very close distances of less than 0.5 metres are  associated  with  'intimate'  relationships,  distances  of  0.5  -  1.2  metres are described as 'personal' relationships, 1.2 - 3.0 metres are referred to as 'social-consultative' , and distances of more than 3 metres are called 'public'

(Hjarvard 2002:244). Correspondingly, Kress and van Leeuwen (1996) take inspiration from Hall to argue that the size of image frame (in both still and moving  images)  represents  a  distinct  relationship  between  the  viewer  and depicted characters.

## 3. Multimodal fi  lm analysis

We follow Livingstone and Lunt (2013) who propose to combine Goff  man's framework with Hodge and Kress's (1988) social semiotic account of meaningmaking. Livingstone and Lunt (2013) point out how social semiotics enables an analytical awareness of the complex and dynamic ways meaning-making resources beyond language are employed in contemporary communication.

As argued by Livingstone and Lunt (2013), mediated communication materialises  in  ways  other  than  face-to-face  interaction,  which  aff  ords constructions and reworkings of participation between involved parties that may diff  er from what has been seen and described in interactions that do not involve (broadcast, digital or social) media using e.g. Goff  man's terms.

Besides  the  complexity  of  participant  frameworks  in  SKAM  related to  the  fi  ctional  communication  level  as  described  above,  communication between the characters is represented by using not only talk, gesture etc., but also by representations of the characters' use of digital communication which therefore  calls  for  a  multimodal  approach  to  describing  the  resources  for meaning-making.

Communication  accomplished  using  writing  involves  technologies such as mobile phones in SKAM, and many scenes in the series depict the characters' production of communicative actions using technologies. Viewers can monitor characters looking at their mobile phones and touching them, i.e. reading and writing, and, thus, access to the communication is provided through access to a small screen.

Th e  data  investigated  in  this  paper  is  another  example  of  complex communication processes. In this setting, communication modes traditionally described as belonging to 'distinct spheres of inquiry' (Livingstone & Lunt 2013:81) create hybrid forms of mediated networked communication.

To  elaborate  on  how  we  conceptualise  the  ways  that  language  (in combination with other modes of communication) constructs how the viewer is positioned as a participant in SKAM, we adopt a social semiotic multimodal perspective on fi  lm. Multimodality is the social semiotic study of modes for communication (Kress 2010, Kress & van Leeuwen 1996, 2001). A mode is a semiotic system such as language, music, still images, and colour. Each semiotic system  makes  available  to  a  group  of  sign  makers  a  set  of  semiotic  resources,  that  is: '[t]he actions, materials and artefacts we use for communicative purposes, whether produced physiologically - for example, with our vocal apparatus, the muscles we use to make facial expressions and gestures - or technologically for example, with pen and ink, or computer hardware and soft  ware - together with the ways in which these resources can be organised. Semiotic resources have a meaning potential, based on their past uses, and a set of aff  ordances based on their possible uses, and these will be actualised in concrete social contexts where their use is subject to some form of semiotic regime. ' (van Leeuwen 2005:285).

Each mode enables sign makers to represent experience, i.e. the ideational metafunction, to enact social relations, i.e. the interpersonal metafunction, and  to  organise  meaning  into  a  text  that  functions  in  a  communicative context,  i.e.  the  textual  metafunction  (Halliday  1994).  Multimodal  fi  lm analysis  investigates  fi  lm  as  a  multimodal  text  in  which  resources  from multiple  modes  co-create  meaning.  Multimodal  fi  lm  analysis  grows  out  of art studies, gestalt psychology, media and fi  lm studies, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), and visual design studies. In one of the fi  rst multimodal fi   lm studies, O'Halloran (2004)  combines neo-formalistic and cognitive fi  lm theory (Bordwell 1985, Bordwell & Th ompson 1994) and a SFL's approach to visual art (O'Toole 1994) in her analytical framework that takes the mise-enscene as the point of departure for a fi  lm analysis. However, as pointed out by Boeriis (2009), this framework is underdeveloped in terms of analytical delicacy,  and  it  relies  too  heavily  on  fi  lm  productional-technical  concepts rather than on semiotic concepts. Another important work is Wildfeuer (2014) which  integrates  media  studies,  cognitive  theory  and  multimodal  research of layout, comics, and still and moving images. Yet, this approach does not operate with a grammar for moving images which makes it incompatible with social semiotics in the SFL tradition. To this day, Boeriis (2009, 2015) presents the most elaborated framework for fi  lm or moving images, combining and rethinking fi  lm studies (especially Bordwell & Th ompson's work), SFL, and social semiotics that allow for a stringent grammatical description of single fi   lm  shots.  We  will  take  inspiration from these works in the analysis of the selected SKAM scene.

## 4. Data and method

For  an  exemplary  analysis  of  constructions  of  participant  frameworks  in SKAM that position viewers on two levels, we will analyse the scene 'Monday 14:15' in episode six from the fi  rst season of SKAM. It is a scene of the yard of the high school where the season's main character, Eva, and her boyfriend, Jonas, interact. In the scene, Eva is sitting at a bench with her two friends, Vilde and Noora, while much of the time she is looking at and interacting with Jonas who stands across the yard, chatting with two friends, Isak and Magnus. From previous scenes, the viewer knows that Eva suspects Jonas to be unfaithful.

We did a multimodal transcription of the scene, following the guidelines of Baldry and Th ibault (2005) and van Leeuwen (2005), but in a simplifi  ed version. We defi  ne a shot as the temporal representation of content between two clips (Boeriis 2009:142-143). In the transcription, we categorised selected semiotic modes and their resources at each shot separately. Th en we mapped out the modes and their meaning potential for cuing a participant framework.

Table 1 shows a sample of the transcription of the fi  rst fi  ve of the total 39 shots in the scene; we will be discussing specifi  c modes and their interaction in the analysis in the following section.

Table 1. Sample from the multimodal transcription of the schoolyard scene in season 1. Th e y-axis in the table displays the diff  erent shots in the scene, while the x-axis maps out selected, salient semiotic modes in each shot.

| Time       |   Shot | Visual frame                                                                                         | Moving image                                                                                 | Speech                                                                                   | Chat   | Sound                                         | Gaze                          | Facial expression   | Gesture      | Body formation                                        |
|------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.56- 3.00 |      1 | High school building, the words (in yellow) Monday and the time 14:15 non- diegetic displayed on the | Ideational: Conceptual analytic whole-parts process Interperso- nal: Public distance         | -                                                                                        | -      | Bird song                                     | -                             | -                   | -            |                                                       |
| 3.00- 3.03 |      2 | Jonas, Isak and Magnus standing and talking in the schoolyard                                        | Ideational: Conceptual classificati- onal process Interperso- nal: Public distance           | Vilde: Jeg skal jo snart møde William igjen (.) og (.?) 'I will soon meet William again' | -      | Distant sound of cars Un- identi- fiable talk | Offer (visual infor- mation)  | -                   | Neutral      | Engagement: from side (Jonas towards Isak and Magnus) |
| 3.03- 3.05 |      3 | Eva's face and upper body as she looks to her right                                                  | Ideational: Conceptual analytic whole-parts process Interperso- nal: Close personal distance | Vilde: (.?) jeg tror vi har noe 'I think we have something'                              | -      |                                               | Demand / oblique to her right | Neutral             | -            | Engagement: body oblique to her left side             |
| 3.05- 3.08 |      4 | Ingrid and two other girls standing and talking in the schoolyard                                    | Ideational: Conceptual classificati- onal process Interperso- nal: Public distance           | Vilde: på gang det er bare (.?) det er ganske (sygt) 'going on, it is quite (sick)'      | -      |                                               | Offer (visual infor- mation)  | -                   | Arms crossed | Engagement: from side (Ingrid towards girls)          |

Th e identifi  ed modes we have categorised are: moving image, speech writing (in SMS chat), sound/music gaze, facial expression (mimic) and head movement, and gesture. On the basis of the multimodal transcription, we analyse and discuss how the (interaction of) multiple modes work to construct diff  erent levels of participation with distinct viewer positions.

## 5. Analysis

Th is paper argues that viewers are positioned on several levels simultaneously through coordination and interaction between telecinematic resources and depictions  of  inter-character  communication,  and  that  these  interactions invite a sense of co-presence for the viewer during the viewing of SKAM.

We will therefore analyse the sequential unfolding of how viewers are positioned according to i) the communication between the TV producers and the recipients of the TV series (level 2), ii) the interactional communication of the fi  ctional characters (level 1), and iii) the digitally mediated communication between the two main characters in the scene (Eva & Jonas) (level 1).

## 5.1. Physical anchoring of the viewer: Establishing time, place and physical placement

In the following, we describe signifi  cant communicative features in the fi  rst shots that are used in the real communication between the collective sender and the viewers as recipients (level 2) with special attention to time and place of the scene and the initial placement of the viewer as imitating a physical presence in relation to the fi  ctional characters. While the analysis does not exhaust the fi  lmic and discursive strategies of the fi  lm style (including mise-enscene, cinematography, and editing), the focus on time, place and positioning of the viewer in terms of perspective, point out the specifi  c ways that the scene positions the viewer relative to what is being said and done by the characters. Th ese seemingly unnoticed features are prerequisites for how the viewer can engage in the interactions of the fi  ctional characters.

Time  is  represented  in  written  language  in  big  yellow  numbers  and letters displayed on the screen (shot 1). Time and day of the week function as temporal circumstantial markers (Halliday 1994). Th e writing compliments the  visual  representation  of  the  building  in  the  daytime  by  adding  more detailed  information  about  when  the  scene  takes  place.  Furthermore,  the written indications of time and day add to the sense of 'here and now' , as pointed out by Jerslev (2017), created through the distribution of scenes in real time on the net series' website. In terms of the two levels of participation described  for  participation  frameworks  of  TV  fi  ction  (Brock  2015,  Dynel 2011), the production crew has made it possible for the set time of the intercharacter interaction (level 1) to possibly clash with the viewing time of viewers (level 2) by foregrounding the time aspect of the scene and the viewing of it by synchronising the time frames of the two communicative levels.

Setting the scene is established in the fi  rst shots. Th is is done ideationally by displaying characters in the schoolyard of the high school; in multimodal terms, these are represented by 'conceptional structures' , i.e. images that show not  actions,  but  structures,  classes  or  taxonomies,  in  the  moving  images (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996). In shot 1, we see an analytical structure, i.e. a whole and its parts, depicting the high school building where the following interactions happens. Eva's upper body and face as she gazes (shots 3 & 5) are also represented as an analytical structure. As we shall describe in more detail, this way of presenting Eva brings the viewer to focus his or her attention on Eva's face and its attributes which will come to play an important part in the following interactions with other characters. In shots 3 and 5, she is shown looking  at  something  on  her  right  side  that  is  not  in  the  frame,  while  her mimic is neutral and shows no apparent expressions. Th e next shots depict three distinct groups of students in the schoolyard; each group are involved in interactions between its members: In shots 2 and 7, Jonas, Isak and Magnus (the boy group) stand behind two unknown students; in shot 4, Ingrid with two friends next to another group of unknown students; and in shot 6, Eva, Vilde  and  Noora  are  depicted  sitting  next  to  each  other.  All  these  shots represent  characters  by  'classifi  cational  processes'  (Kress  &  van  Leeuwen 1996), that is, they show members (the girls and boys) as belonging to the same class or unit (the girl and boy groups). So in terms of the participant frameworks established through depictions of groups of characters in these shots, groups of friends are established as organised physically close to each other, i.e. expressing a personal social relationship (Hjarvard 2002, Kress & van Leeuwen 1996), and some of them are depicted as engaged in interaction with one another as their bodies and faces are turned towards each other.

Example 1

| Shot 1                                                                                                                           | Shot 2                                                                         |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| High school building, the words (in yellow) Monday and the time 14:15 non-diegetic displayed on the image                        | Jonas, Isak and Magnus standing and talking in the schoolyard                  |
| Shots 3 and 5                                                                                                                    | Shot 4                                                                         |
| Eva's face and upper body as she looks to her right                                                                              | Ingrid and two other girls standing and talking in the schoolyard              |
| Shot 6                                                                                                                           | Shot 7                                                                         |
| Noora, Vilde and Eva sitting aligned on a bench in the schoolyard, Noora and Vilde looking at each other, Eva looks to her right | Jonas and the boy group, Jonas gazes to his left (directly towards the camera) |

As mentioned, cinematic resources such as camera height, distance and focus are  used  to  create  specifi  c  viewing  positions  for  the  viewer.  According  to Brock (2015), these resources may be organised to resemble the position of a natural overhearer and become 'the main fi  ctitious identifi  cation point for the real TV viewer to slip into' (2015:33). In the SKAM scene investigated, diff  erences in camera distance imitate how the viewer is physically placed in relation to characters. In shots 1, 2, 4 and 7, we have a public distance from which the viewer sees the scenario from an overall perspective, thereby the viewer should focus on the public space in which the scene is about to play out.  In  these  shots,  the  camera  distance  helps  the  viewer  to  orient  him  or herself  in  relation  to  the  girl  and  boy  groups  in  the  schoolyard.  From  this position, the viewer gets access to a privileged perspective from where he or she can observe the characters and their interaction(s). Regarding the shot of Vilde, Noora and Eva (6), the viewer sees them at medium distance as if we were standing in front of them as a fourth member of their group. From this position, the viewer can listen to their conversation and see them all at the same time. Th us, the viewer is placed in an interpersonal space, without being intimate. In the main interaction between Eva and Jonas, the camera displays a close-up of Eva's head (shots 3 & 5), while Jonas is shown in a long frame (shot 4), thus in public distance (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996). As the scene continues, the camera shift  s between close personal distance (to Eva's head and face) and public distance (of Ingrid's girl group 1 and Jonas's boy group). Th is way, the camera distance positions the viewer in a closer relationship with Eva than with Jonas. From this, it follows, as pointed out by Jerslev (2017), with reference to   studies of faces on fi  lm by Balázs (1970 [1923]), Deleuze (1983/1986) and Doane (2003), that the face shots invite rich interpretations of the fi  ctional character's emotions and reactions to interactions with others.

Th e shift  s in shots (i.e. the 'montage') create other layers of imitation of the physical anchoring point of the camera. Th e scene entails many sequences of eyeline match (Janney 2012); the fi  rst shot shows what is seen (e.g. a group of characters as in shot 2), and the second shot shows the person from whose position the fi  rst shot is viewed (e.g. a close-up of Eva as in shot 3). Th is editing technique thereby contributes further to establishing a viewing position close to or even imitating that of Eva.

Also, (un)stability of the camera shots confers meaning that contributes to  the  viewing  experience.  Following  Boeriis  (2009),  the  stability  of  shots functions  in  social  semiotic  terms  as  a  modality  marker  in  the  creation of  a  diff  erent  degree  of  photographical  realism,  e.g.  a  naturalistic  visual representation of reality. Th is marker represents a scale from a stable to shaky camera shot. In the fi  rst shots of the schoolyard where the viewer sees the girls and boy groups and Eva singled out, the camera shakes a little bit, indicating a hand-held camera. Th ese small shakes subtly encode the individual experience of the schoolyard interactions that the viewer would also experience if present at the same time and place.

In sum, the description of specifi  c semiotic resources in the fi  rst shots aims to show how the scene establishes the participant framework between the TV producers and the recipients of the TV series, i.e. the second level of communication in Dynel's (2011) model, and positions the viewer in time and space relative to the characters, i.e. provide them with a physically anchored fi  ctitious viewer slot. With these features, the scene lays the foundation for how the viewer can experience the social interactions amongst fi  ctive characters on the inter-character level.

## 5.2. Constructing the viewer as a physically co-present and involved overhearer in a complex social setting

Th e depicted organisation of the communication between the characters in a TV production is also a cinematic strategy that contributes to positioning the viewer as a recipient (Dynel 2011). As described in the previous section, the viewer is anchored in the scenario shown through the positioning of the camera close to Eva and further away from Jonas, and the fi  rst shots introduced Eva and Jonas as co-present and able to monitor each other at a public distance (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996) and as each hanging out with a group of friends. In this section, we focus on how participants accomplish focused encounters in this social space. We show that their sequentially organised and coordinated actions  are  represented  in  ways  that  imitate  methods  used  by  ordinary participants in naturally occurring everyday interaction to initiate a focused encounter  in  a  public  space  (Goff  man  1963).  We  also  show  how  diff  erent semiotic resources are used and integrated and refl  ect the physical placement of the participants relative to each other and how the viewer is provided access to communicative contributions in ways that refl  ect the viewer's placement close to Eva and Eva's involvement in the two inter-character participation frameworks  that  are  represented:  her  interaction  with  her  friends  and  her interaction with Jonas.

Th e  viewer  is  fi  rst  presented  with  shots  that  indicate  a  co-presence  of characters in the public space of the schoolyard. Co-presence is described as a  precondition  for  initiating  focused  encounters  in  face-to-face  interaction (Hutchby 2014).

Example 2

| Shot 2                                                        | Speech:                                                                                    | Shot 6                                                                                                                           | Speech                                                 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
| Jonas, Isak and Magnus standing and talking in the schoolyard | Vilde: Jeg skal jo snart møde William igjen og 'I am going to see William again soon and)' | Noora, Vilde and Eva sitting aligned on a bench in the schoolyard, Noora and Vilde looking at each other, Eva looks to her right | Vilde: j eg tror absolutt at 'I absolutely think that' |

Eva is placed next to her two friends who are engaged in a focused encounter, i.e. they are at a personal distance relative to each other (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996) (see e.g. shot 6): one of the girls, Vilde, tells about having sex with a boy recently, and the other girl, Noora takes on the role as recipient of the telling by gazing towards Vilde, providing minimal response and asking questions.

Th e viewer is introduced to this conversation in shot 2, as the voice of Vilde is  heard  saying: Jeg  skal  jo  snart  møde  William  igjen  og (I  am  going  to  see William again soon and). Th is voice over continues until shot 5, and it is not until shot 6 that Vilde, Noora, and Eva are depicted together, and Vilde carries on talking: jeg tror absolutt at (I absolutely think that' . Eva, however, does not orient towards displaying recipiency. Rather, Eva gazes in another direction and has a mobile phone in her hands. In multimodal terms, in the shots of Eva (3 and 5), her eyeline creates a vector towards a goal outside the camera frame, thus, the shots simply display her gazing, but the viewer does not know what she is looking at; the viewer sees the mere process of looking, and '[as] a result, the viewer is left   to imagine who or what (s)he may be communicating with' (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996:66). In terms of her involvement as a participant in the interaction with the two co-present friends she is placed next to, she does not position herself as an addressee by way of gaze, verbal responses etc., i.e. by displaying engagement in the interaction (Goff  man, 1981:130). As previous shots depict Jonas and his friends (see e.g. shot 2), viewers may imply that Eva is gazing towards Jonas, who has a mobile phone in his hands which he gazes at. One of the next shots shown below (shot 11b), depicts a change in Jonas' gaze direction compared to shot 2. Hence, by way of the shot-reverse shots,  viewers  may  infer  that  Eva  and  Jonas  now  have  eye  contact.  Studies of  entries  into  focused  encounters  in  naturally  occurring  interaction  show that mutual gaze and mutual orientation of bodies are characteristic of the phase before co-present participants initiate a verbal exchange (e.g. Mondada 2009). Th ese shift  s in shots occur while Vilde's telling continues. Th is means that the viewer is involved as a hearing participant in the interaction between the girls and as a participant with visual access to the bodily formations and actions of characters in both groups, including the shift  ing orientations of Eva and Jonas. As the viewer is not presented with visual access to Vilde, who is the character who speaks the most in the scene, very much of the time, this means that the non-verbal actions, accomplished through bodily formations and  gaze,  are  off  ered  as  signifi  cant  semiotic  resources  for  interpretation by  the  viewer  and  that  the  viewer  is  invited  to  follow  and  monitor  Eva's establishment of embodied involvement with Jonas. Th us, in sum, two intercharacter participation frameworks that Eva participates in simultaneously, are represented for the viewer.

Besides  being  provided  access  to  the  depiction  of  two  inter-character participation frameworks (level 1) occurring simultaneously through cinematic resources such as camera placement (level 2), the viewer is invited to pay attention to how the main character relates to these two interactions in terms of how she participates in them. Th is is mainly achieved through shift  s in shots matching Eva's eye gaze (Janney 2012) and thus imitating her visual attention and embodied involvement in the interactions, and through closeups (Jerslev 2017) which allows the viewer to monitor and interpret Eva's facial and bodily gestures and talk (or lack thereof) in response to other characters' communicative actions.

## 5.3. Intimate viewer access through representations of technologically mediated communication between characters

Th e  interaction  between  Eva  and  Jonas  could  have  ended  aft  er  having visually dramatised a confl  ict between the two through the representations of mutual monitoring and bodily communication, but it continues as another communication mode is added to the interaction: Jonas sends Eva a digital text using his mobile phone. Th is communication mode is added while the viewer continuously has access to Vilde's telling and can monitor Jonas and Eva's bodies in turn as the shots shift   between them.

Example 3

| Shot 11b                                                                                                                                | Text message                                                               | Speech + sounds                                                                            |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Jonas (and some other boys not very visible) standing and talking in the schoolyard, Jonas looking to his left away from the other boys | Jonas: Smil a 'Smile' (shown to as a speech bubble on the viewer's screen) | Noora: ((coughs)) javel 'I see' ((Sound from mobile phone indicating an incoming message)) |

As the transcription above shows, digital messages sent and received by the characters are presented for the viewer on the viewer's (TV or mobile) screen in speech bubbles.

Whereas 'characters cannot acknowledge viewers' presence' in fi  ctional TV  discourse  as  noted  by  Dynel  (2011:1631),  i.e.  on  the  inter-character level, when the messages are presented on screen, the fi  lm production crew acknowledges  the  presence  of  viewers  as  they  provide  them  with  special access to the textual messages exchanged between e.g. Eva and Jonas, i.e. on the real level. Further, the viewing of the written messages on a screen mirrors how characters also have access to the communication through a screen. Th e messages are not, in this case, shared between other co-present characters, i.e. Eva's friends who are physically very close to her, which means that viewers are  included  in  communication  which  even  friends  are  not  included  in. Th ereby, viewers are provided intimate access to communication between Eva and Jonas only. Further, the viewer's screen may represent or imitate a double layer of visual perception simultaneously: Th e view caught by the camera at a selected spot in the schoolyard close to Eva and part of the view of selected characters' mobile devices when reading and writing text messages.

Th e  view  to  the  involved  characters'  bodies,  also  available  to  the characters  themselves  while  they  text  each  other,  provides  for  the  body  to be used as a resource to accompany the text message. Hence, characters can indicate to each other that they have conducted a verbal action and that they await a response. In the shot of Jonas shown above, he is depicted as gazing towards Eva aft  er having sent the text message Smil a 'Smile' and, thus, in this case the shift   in gaze from the mobile phone to Eva may be used to indicate an expectation that Eva responds next. Th e text may be understandable as an encouragement for her to change her visual appearance and acknowledge his presence by smiling.

Shift  s  in  shots  back  to  Eva  guide  viewers  to  monitor  how  Eva  responds  to Jonas. She is depicted as gazing downwards, i.e. as gazing at her mobile phone, aft  er which she gazes up, obliquely, i.e. towards Jonas, at the same time as a text message appears on the viewer's screen next to Eva's head, saying Smil selv 'Smile  yourself ' .  Instead  of  conducting  the  action  requested  of  her  by Jonas, i.e. gesturing in the form of a smile, which he would be able to perceive because of  their  co-presence  in  the  schoolyard,  Eva  responds  by  using  the same communication mode as Jonas did.

Example 4

| Shot 12a                                    | Speech                       | Shot 12b                                                      | Text message                    | Speech                                                |
|---------------------------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| Eva's face and upper body as she looks down | Noora: hvordan var 'how was' | Eva's face and upper body as she looks obliquely to her right | Eva: Smil selv 'Smile yourself' | Noora: det? 'it?' Vilde: Det var lidt ' It was a bit' |

As the scene continues, Vilde's telling is still available auditively, and visually the shots mainly shift   between Jonas (and his friends) and Eva. For example, they can both be seen to be mainly occupied with their mobile phones rather than with their co-present friends. Th e viewer is guided to such an interpretation as they are both depicted as being bodily oriented to their phones which may indicate reading and writing and otherwise monitoring their mobile screens, and as Noora and Vilde are seldom shown in the shots. Th us, camera shots and shift  s imitate and depict Eva's involvement with Jonas and lack of involvement with her friends.

Th e  next few shots depict a situation in which the viewer is not only provided with a digitally mediated text that has been exchanged between the participants but is also provided access to the process of producing a text. Th e viewer can monitor Eva's face and upper body. Most of the time Eva gazes down. To the right of her a text fi  eld is visible for the viewer. While the camera stays focused on Eva, the text fi  eld changes from being empty to the occurrence of more and more letters until it reads FUCK YOU! Next, the letters disappear, whereas the text fi  eld stays on the viewer's screen for a moment, before also disappearing as Eva reengages in interaction with her co-present friends.

Example 5

| Shot 36a                                    | Text Message field   | Speech                                                            | Shot 36b                                            | Text message field   | Speech                                                   |
|---------------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
| Eva's face and upper body as she looks down | ((empty text field)) | Noora: det jo det som er vigtigst 'that's what is most important' | Eva's face and upper body as she looks down         | FUCK YOU!            | Vilde: det var kjæmpebra 'that was very good'            |
| Shot 36c                                    | Text message field   | Speech                                                            | Shot 36d                                            | Text message field   | Speech                                                   |
| Eva's face and upper body as she looks down | ((empty text field)) | Vilde: men en ting bare 'but just one thing'                      | Eva's face and upper body as she looks to her right |                      | Vilde: der er ingen som fortæller dig 'no one tells you' |

Th e depiction of Eva's gaze downwards and the changes that occur in the text fi  eld may be interpreted as involving the viewer in the production of a text that is deleted rather than sent. Few studies on naturally occurring, digitally mediated communication have focused on the production of texts and actions as such. However, work by e.g. Meredith and Stokoe (2014), focusing on Facebook chat, shows that participants who are in the process of writing sometimes do so-called self-initiated self-repair as they, for example, correct typos, delete and replace text etc. before sending it. Th is means that contrary to repair in spoken interaction, this type of repair is not visible for co-participants. In the case of the SKAM scene above, however, viewers are provided access to the production and deletion of the text as well as visual access to Eva's upper body and face as she conducts the actions, which was not available in Meredith and Stokoe's (2014) study as they used screen recordings as data. By providing the viewer access to a communication process of writing and deleting text which Eva is depicted as the only author of, and which co-participants ordinarily do not have access to, the production crew uses representations of digitally mediated communication to create another sense of viewer involvement in the interaction. Th rough these means, viewers have intimate access to Eva's immediate response to Jonas's action, which she then chooses to not provide him, or other co-participants access to by deleting the text instead of sending it.  Th ereby  a  sense  of  getting  access  to  Eva's  unregulated  fi  rst  response  in the form of a text that is never sent is provided for the viewer in a complex social setting involving two groups of characters and several inter-character participation frameworks.

## 6. Conclusion

Th e  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  show  how  viewer  participation  during  the viewing  of  a  scene  from  SKAM  occurs  on  two  communication  levels:  a fi  ctitious one and a real one, and how cinematic resources used to represent inter-character  communication  blur  what  is  real  and  what  is  fi  ction  and create  a  fi  ctitious  participation  slot  for  the  viewer.  Building  on  research  of participation  frameworks  in  TV  fi  ction  (Brock,  2015,  Dynel,  2011)  and multimodal fi  lm analysis (Boeriis 2009, Kress & van Leeuwen 1996, 2001), our analysis shows that the participant roles of viewers on the fi  ctitious level (level  1)  are  invited  by  carefully  representing  and  coordinating  characters' communicative  resources  on  the  real  communication  level  (level  2).  A fi  ctitious  viewing  position  physically  anchored  close  to  the  main  character is created and maintained through a relatively fi  xed camera placement, and the scene analysed depicts how Eva manages degrees of involvement in two inter-character participation frameworks simultaneously by using embodied resources,  speech  and  text  messages,  which  the  viewer  is  provided  special access to for monitoring.

Creating a participant position for the viewer on the fi  ctitious communication level is, according to Brock (2015), an ideal way of overcoming disbelief and being drawn into the fi  ctitious world. We suggest that the fi  ctitious level and the real level of participation are highly coordinated and provide a sense of an integrated viewing position that blurs what is reality and what is fi  ction. Th at is, the camera is used as an imitation of the viewer both in terms of physical positioning and of eye gaze shift  s in order to monitor characters' interaction,  and  the  physical  positioning  is  coordinated  with  restricted access to characters' interpersonal interaction that matches or imitates what presumably would be observable and monitorable from that position. Several semiotic modes are represented either in sequences or simultaneously in ways that both imitate everyday interaction and underscore a sense of physical and social presence, thereby inviting a sense of being there (IJsselsteijn & Riva, 2003). Furthermore, the representation of both written and spoken language simultaneously makes the monitoring of several participation frameworks of the characters possible for the viewer, which, we suggest, may create a sense of immersion in the setting as it invites the viewer to pay attention to how several social relationships between characters are represented simultaneously and to how the main character navigates in this complex social setting.

Th e  representation  of  the  written  exchange  between  Eva  and  Jonas requires some elaboration in terms of how the viewer is provided access to the written exchange. As our analysis showed, the viewers are provided access to the written exchanges on their screen, while they also have simultaneous access to one or more of the characters' bodies and embodied actions. Such a representation exposes the representation of the characters' communication (level 1) as a cinematic construction (level 2) because none of the characters would have visual access to the bodies of the other characters and their written message at the exact same time, and the written exchange would be accessible on the screen of their mobile phone, i.e. along with semiotic resources other than  the  singled  out  text  message.  However,  even  though  text  messages exchanged between the characters represented on the viewer's screen breaks with the representation of the viewer as simply an 'overhearer' as he or she is  provided  special  access  to  the  written  exchanges,  which  is  not  possible through the physical anchoring of the viewer through camera placement, the specifi  c  representation  of  the  messages  on  the  viewer's  screen  also  imitates Eva's  viewing  perspective:  on  a  screen.  Th us,  again,  Eva's  perceptual  access to  the  communication  is  imitated  through  the  representation  of  written messages, and, as we showed, the viewer gets intimate and exclusive access to Eva's production of written messages.

So,  in  supplementing  other  studies  with  a  linguistic  and  multimodal perspective, this study argues that the coordination and interaction between inter-character  communicative  resources  represented  through  cinematic resources aff  ord a sense of co-presence and immersion and in some instances intimate access into the fi  ctitious universe of SKAM in viewing situations.

## References

- Balázs, Bela (1970) [1923]. Th e Close-up/ Th e Face of Man. Th eory of the fi  lm: Character and growth of a new art, ed. by Bela Balázs, 52-89. New York: Dover.
- Baldry, Anthony; and Paul J. Th ibault (2005). Multimodal transcription and text analysis : A multimodal toolkit and coursebook. London and Oakville: Equinox.
- Boeriis, Morten (2009). Multimodal Socialsemiotik & Levende Billeder. Multimodal Social Semiotics and Moving Images]. PhD thesis, University of Southern Denmark .
- Boeriis, Morten (2015). Det analytiske nærbillede: om multimodal analyse af levende billeder i kontekst. Kontekst, språk og multimodalitet: Nyere sosialsemiotiske perspektiver, ed. by Gundhild Kvåle, Eva Maagerø & Aslaug Veum, 103-122. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
- Bordwell, David (1985). Narration in the fi  ction fi  lm . London: Methuen.
- Bordwell, David; and Kristin Th ompson (1994). Film history: an introduction . 7 th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Brock, Alexander (2015). Participation frameworks and participation in televised sitcom, candid camera and stand-up comedy. Participation in public and social media interactions , ed. by Marta Dynel & Jan Chovanec, 27-47. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Bubel,  Claudia  M.  (2008).  Film  audiences  as  overhearers. Journal  of  Pragmatics, 40 (1), 55-71.
- Chepinchikj, Neda; and Celia Th ompson (2016). Analysing cinematic discourse using conversation analysis. Discourse, Context & Media, 14 , 40-53.
- Deleuze, Gilles (1986) [1983]. Cinema I: Th e movement-image . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Doane, Mary Ann (2003). Diff  erences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 14 (3), 89-111.
- Dynel, Marta (2011). 'You talking to me?' Th e viewer as a ratifi  ed listener to fi  lm discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (6), 1628-1644.
- Goff  man,  Erving  (1963).  Behaviour  in  public  places:  notes  on  the  social  order  of gatherings. New York: Th e Free Press.

- Goff  man,  Erving  (1981). Forms  of  talk .  Philadelphia:  University  of  Pennsylvania Press.
- Hall, Edward T. (1959). Th e silent language . New York: Doubleday.
- Hall, Edward T. (1966). Th e hidden dimension . Garden City, New York: Doubleday.
- Halliday, Michael A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar . 2 nd edition. London: Edward Arnold.
- Hjarvard,  Stig  (2002).  Simulated  Conversations.  Th e  Simulation  of  Interpersonal Communication in Electronic Media. Realism and 'Reality'in Film and Media, ed. by Anne Jerslev , 227-252. Northern Lights: Film and Media Studies Yearbook 2002. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.
- Hodge, Robert; and Gunther Kress (1988). Social Semiotics . Cambridge: Polity.
- Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: Th e living questionnaire . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Hutchby, Ian (2014). Communicative aff  ordances and participation frameworks in mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 72 , 86-89.
- IJsselsteijn, Wijnand. A.; and Guiseppe Riva (2003). Being there: the experience of presence  in  mediated  environments. Being  there:  concepts,  eff  ects  and  measurements of user presence in synthetic environments ,  ed.  by  Guiseppe Riva; Fabrizio Davide; and Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn, 3-16. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
- Janney, Richard (2012). Pragmatics and cinematic discourse. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics, 8 (1), 85-113.
- Jerslev,  Anne  (2017).  SKAMs'  lige  her' og'lige  nu':  Om  SKAM  og  nærvær. Nordisk Tidsskrift   for Informationsvidenskab og Kulturformidling, 6 (2), 75-81.
- Jucker, Andreas H.; and Miriam A. Locher (2017). Introducing Pragmatics of Fiction: Approaches, trends and developments. Pragmatics of fi  ction, ed. by Miriam A. Locher; and Andreas H. Jucker, 1-21. Göttingen, Germany: De Gruyter, Inc.
- Kann-Rasmussen, Nanna; and Gitte Balling (2017). Endelig! Historien om en tiltrængt public service succes. Nordisk Tidsskrift   for Informationsvidenskab og Kulturformidling, 6 (2), 82-88.
- Kress, Gunther (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication . London: Routledge.
- Kress, Gunther; and Th eo van Leeuwen (1996). Reading images: Th e grammar of visual design . 1 st edition. London: Routledge.
- Kress, Gunther; and Th eo van Leeuwen (2001). Multimodal Discourse: Th e  Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication . London: Hodder Arnold.
- Livingstone, Sonia; and Peter Lunt (2013). Mediated frameworks for participation. Multimodality and Social Semiosis: Communication, meaning-making, and learning in the work of Gunther Kress, ed. by Margit Böck & Norbert Pachler, 79-88. New York: Routledge.
- Meredith, Joanne; and Elizabeth Stokoe (2014). Repair: Comparing Facebook 'chat' with spoken interaction. Discourse & communication, 8 (2), 181-207.
- Messerli, Th omas. C. (2017). Participation structure in fi  ctional discourse: Authors, scriptwriters,  audiences  and  characters. Pragmatics  in  fi  ction , ed.  by Miriam A. Locher; and Andreas H. Jucker, 25-54. Göttingen, Germany: De Gruyter, Inc.
- Mondada, Lorenza (2009). Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41 (10), 1977-1997.

- O'Halloran, Kay L. (2004). Visual semiosis in fi  lm. Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic-functional perspectives, ed. by Kay L. O'Halloran, 109-130. London; New York: Continuum International Publishing.
- O'Toole, Michael (1994). Th e language of displayed art . London: Leicester University Press.
- Piazza, Roberta; Monika Bednarak; and Fabio Rossi (2011). Introduction: Analyzing telecinematic discourse. Telecinematic discourse: Approaches to the language of fi  lms and television series , ed. by Roberta Piazza; Monika Bednarak; and Fabio Rossi, 1-20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Sundet, Vilde Schanke (2017). «Det er bare du som kan føle det du føler»-emosjonell investering og engasjement i nettdramaet SKAM. 16:9 fi  lmtidsskrift .
- van Leeuwen, Th eo (2005). Introducing social semiotics . London: Routledge.
- Wildfeuer, Janina (2014). Film discourse interpretation: Towards a new paradigm for multimodal fi  lm analysis . New York: Routledge.