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 (45)
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 (4)

Cited by four other publications

Koike, Dale A. & Cecilia Tocaimaza-Hatch
2024. L2 interactional competence in a short-term service-learning and study abroad program. Study Abroad Research in Second Language Acquisition and International Education 9:2 ► pp. 157 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
Koike, Dale & Carl S. Blyth
2016. A metadialogic approach to intercultural dialogue. Language and Dialogue 6:2 ► pp. 223 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 24 july 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.