Cover not available
Part of
Dialogue in Multilingual and Multimodal Communities
Edited by Dale Koike and Carl S. Blyth
[Dialogue Studies 27] 2015
► pp. 253–285

Changing frames in native speaker and learner talk

Moving toward a shared dialogue

| University of Texas at Austin

This study examines how Spanish native speakers (NSs) and second language (L2) learners deal with changing frames in talk. Goffman’s (1974) ideas of frames and ‘keys’ are extended to NS-learner informal interviews to characterize the pragmatic resources that NS and learners use to change frames. The data indicate that the participants signal changes using various pragmatic resources, such as questions implying a new frame, personal comments, and emotional reactions such as laughter or sympathy. Frame changes can also be rejected. The study illustrates the role of pragmatics in pointing to changes in the discourse, showing that L2 communication difficulties can stem from such changes. These pragmatic resources should be part of the description of ‘shared repertoires’ that facilitate dialogue in NS-learner communities.

Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.27.09koi
References
Arundale, Robert, and David Good
2002 “Boundaries and Sequences in Studying Conversation.” In Rethinking Sequentiality: Linguistics Meets Conversational Interaction, ed. by Anita Fetzer, and Christiane Meierkord, 121–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, John, and John Heritage
1984 Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan
1990 Human Memory. Theory and Practice. Hovel/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen, and Beverley Hartford
(eds) 2005 Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1972 Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballentine.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2005 “Frames Revisited: The Coherence-inducing Function of Frames.” Journal of Pragmatics 37: 685–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, Sarah
2001 “Spanish Scripts, Frames, and Schemata: Linguistic Evidence of Structures of Expectations and Cultural Rules of Speaking.” Pragmatics and Language Learning 10: 222–250.Google Scholar
2009 “Framing and the Power of Expectation in Spanish.” Spanish in Context 6(2): 249–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bobrow, Daniel, and Donald Norman
1975 “Some Principles of Memory Schemata. Representation and Understanding.” In Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, ed. by Daniel G. Bobrow, and Allan M. Collins, 131–149. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
1980 The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert
1996 Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas
2007 Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
2010 “Historical Sociopragmatics.” In Historical Pragmatics, ed. by 
Andreas Jucker, and Irma Taavitsainen, 69–96. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dings, Abigail
2004 Developing Interactional Competence in a Second Language: A Case Study of a Spanish Language Learner. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
(eds) 1992 Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ensink, Titus
2003 “Transformational Frames: Interpretative Consequences of Frame Shifts and Frame Embeddings.” In Framing and Perspectivizing in Discourse, ed. by Titus Ensink, and Christoph Sauer, 63–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ensink, Titus, and Christoph Sauer
(eds) 2003 Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. 
Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frake, Charles
1977 “Plying Frames can be Dangerous: Some Reflections on Methodology in Cognitive Anthropology.” The Quarterly Newsletter for the Institute for Comparative Human Cognition 1: 1–7.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantic Vol 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John
1982 Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haakana, Markku
2001 “Laughter as a Patient’s Resource: Dealing with Delicate Aspects of Medical Interaction.” Text 21(1/2): 187–219.Google Scholar
Hanks, William F
1993 “Metalanguage and Pragmatics of Deixis.” In Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, ed. by John A. Lucy, 127–157. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1974 “Ways of Speaking.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed. by Robert Bauman, and Joel Sherzer, 433–451. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1984 “On the Organization of Laughter in Talk about Troubles.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Max Atkinson, and John Heritage, 349–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Koike, Dale
2010 “Behind L2 Pragmatics: The Role of Expectations.” In Dialogue in Spanish: Studies in Functions and Contexts, ed. by Dale Koike, and Lidia Rodríguez-Alfano, 257–282. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Dialogue Studies 7). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Variation in NS-learner Interactions: Frames and Expectations in Pragmatic Co-construction.” In Pragmatic Variation in First and Second Language Contexts: Methodological Issues, ed. by César Félix-Brasdefer, and Dale Koike, 175–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, Benjamin J
1975 “A Frame for Frames: Representing Knowledge for Recognition.” In Representation and Understanding. Studies in Cognitive Science, ed. by Daniel G. Bobrow, and Allan Collins, 151–184. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurhila, Salla
2006 Second Language Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
1992 [1979] “Activity Types and Language.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liddicoat, Anthony, and Angela Scarino
2013 Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minsky, Marvin
1980 “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” In Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, ed. by Dieter Metzing, 1–25. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Prego-Vásquez, Gabriela
2006 “The Recycling of Local Discourses in the Institutional Talk: Naturalization Strategies, Interactional Control, and Public Local Identities.” Estudios de sociolingüística 7(1): 55–82.Google Scholar
Reyes, Graciela
2002 Metapragmática: lenguaje sobre lenguaje, ficciones, figuras. Valladolid, Spain: Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial, Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation.” Language 50: 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schank, Roger, and Robert Abelson
1977 Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swain, Merrill, and Sharon Lapkin
1998 “Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion students Working Together.” Modern Language Journal 82(3): 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1980 “A Comparative Analysis of Oral Narrative Strategies: Athenian Greek and American English.” In The Pear Stories, ed. by Wallace Chafe, 51–87. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
1993 [1979] “What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations.” In Framing in Discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 14–56. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat
1993 “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination Interview.” In Framing in Discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 57–113. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda
2010 Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (Dialogue Studies 10) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne
1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1994 “ ‘Cultural Scripts’: A New Approach to the Study of Cross-cultural Communication.” In Language Contact and Language Conflict, ed. by Martin Pütz, 67–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, Richard
2009 Discursive Practice in Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Koike, Dale & Carl S. Blyth
2016. A metadialogic approach to intercultural dialogue. Language and Dialogue 6:2 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Koike, Dale A., Víctor Garre León & Gloria Pérez Cejudo
2022. Twitter and the Real Academia Española: perspectives on impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 18:1 ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Showstack, Rachel E.
2016. La pragmática transcultural de los hablantes de herencia de español: análisis e implicaciones pedagógicas. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching 3:2 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.