Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 29:1 (2022) ► pp.135–159

“Dr. Shelby, that’s a world record!”

Frame breaking in experimental settings

| University of North Texas at Dallas
| University of Northern Iowa
| Texas A&M University-Commerce

Participation in experimental studies can be conceptualized as Goffmanian frames, i.e. a set of rules which include the fact the experimenter will be observing participant behavior through (the recording of) the experiment. This study is focused on frame breaches in 16 video- and audio-recorded dyadic conversations taking place in an experimental setting. Our main conclusion is that the experimental frame is conceptualized by participants as including constraints that go beyond non-experimental interactions, and in particular the need to mitigate frame breaches, which are seen as face-threatening. Analyses revealed that participants only broke the research frame after they completed the task they were assigned by the researcher, and that breaches did not necessarily correspond to changes in key. Insights gained in relation to face and mitigation are discussed, as well as the participants’ need to determine their next steps once the research purpose has been perceived complete.

Keywords: frame, frame breach, key, face, mitigation, play, experimental setting
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Frame-work
    • 2.1Frames and rituals
    • 2.2Clusters of contextualization cues
    • 2.3Participant orientation to being observed
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Data collection
    • 3.3Data analysis
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Nature of the breaches
    • 4.2Frame breaking and re-keying
  • 5.Conclusions and further research
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22009.mil
References
Attardo, Salvatore
2020a Scripts, frames, and other semantic objects. In Salvatore Attardo (ed.), Script-based semantics: Foundations and applications. Essays in honor of Victor Raskin, 11–42. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020b The linguistics of humor: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barreto, Krícia, Carolina S. Abritta, Daniel Z. Kádár & Juliane House
2021 On the theory of ritual frame indicating expressions: A conversation with Juliane House and Daniel Kádár, discussing Goffman’s ideas. Veredas-Revista de Estudos Linguisticos 25(1). 43–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1972 Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika A.
2005 Frames revisited: The coherence-inducing function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics 37(5). 685–705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bellah, Robert N.
2005 Durkheim and ritual. In Jeffrey C. Alexander & Philip Smith (eds.), The Cambridge companion to Durkheim, 183–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
2007 Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
2013 Mitigation. In Marina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 235–286. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L.
1980 The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
1999 Irony in conversation. Language in Society 28(4). 523–553. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Catherine E.
1984 Joint joking: Improvisational humorous episodes in conversation. In Claudia Brugman & Monica Macaulay (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 360–371. Berkeley, CA: University of California. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schueteze-Coburnm & Danae Paolino
1992 Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 41. 1–255.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald
1984 Le dire et le dit [The saying and the said]. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile
1912 The elementary forms of religious life. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul & Wally V. Friesen
2002 Facial Action Coding System: A technique for the measurement of facial movement. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. [URL]
Ensink, Titus & Sauer, Christopher
2003 Social-functional and cognitive approaches to discourse interpretation. In Titus Ensink & Christopher Sauer (eds.), Framing and perspectivising in discourse, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ergül, Hilal
2021 Mitigating oral corrective feedback through linguistic strategies and smiling. Journal of Pragmatics 1831. 142–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1967 Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
1974 Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1981a Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
1981b A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology 10(1). 60–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1983 The interaction order. American Sociological Review 481. 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
2006 Interactive footing. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie H.
1996 Shifting frame. In Dan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis & Jiansheng Guo (eds.), Social Interaction, social context, and language, 71–82. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia
2002 “I’m mommy and you’re Natalie”: Role-reversal and embedded frames in mother-child discourse. Language in Society 31(5). 679–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 A (p) parent play: Blending frames and reframing in family talk. Language in Society 37(3). 319–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Beyond the observer’s paradox: The audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity. Qualitative Research 13(3). 299–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Framing and positioning. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 324–345. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1989 Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J.
1977 Socio-cultural knowledge in conversational inference. In Muriel Saville-Troyke (ed.), Linguistics and anthropology, 191–211. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1982 Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996 The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational inference. In John J. Gumperz & Stephen. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 374–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. J. & Deborah Tannen
1979 Individual and social differences in language use. In Charles J. Fillmore, Daniel Kempler & William S.-Y. Wang (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 305–325. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hazel, Spencer
2016 The paradox from within: Research participants doing-being-observed. Qualitative Research 16(4). 446–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
House, Juliane & Daniel Z. Kádár
2021 Cross-cultural pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoyle, Susan M.
1993 Participation frameworks in sportscasting play: Imaginary and literal footings. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Framing in discourse, 114–145. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1972 Models of the interaction of language and social life. In John J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Michael H. & Soren Kristiansen
2015 The social thought of Erving Goffman. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z.
2013 Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Politeness, impoliteness and ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z. & Juliane House
2019 Ritual frame and politeness markers. Pragmatics & Society 10(4). 639–647. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020a Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Pragmatics 30(1). 142–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020b The pragmatics of ritual: An introduction. Pragmatics 30(1). 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keltner, Dacher & Cameron Anderson
2000 Saving face for Darwin: The functions and uses of embarrassment. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(6). 187–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keltner, Dacher & Brenda N. Buswell
1997 Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin 122(3). 250–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
2004 Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotthoff, Helga
1999 Coherent keying in conversational humour: Contextualising joint fictionalisation. In Wolfram Bublitz, Uta Lenk & Eija Ventola (eds.), Coherence in spoken and written discourse: How to create it and how to describe it, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1972 Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laney, Cara, Suzanne O. Kaasa, Erin K. Morris, Shari R. Berkowitz, Daniel M. Bernstein & Elizabeth F. Loftus
2007 The Red Herring technique: A methodological response to the problem of demand characteristics. Psychological Research 72(4). 362–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, & Lynne Cameron
2008 Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal 92(2). 200–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Martin Weisser
2003a Generic speech act annotation for task-oriented dialogues. In Dawn Archer, Paul Rayson, Andrew Wilson & Tony McEnery (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference, 441–446. Lancaster: Lancaster University.Google Scholar
2003b SPAAC speech-act annotation scheme [White paper]. Retrieved January 1, 2019 from Lancaster University: [URL]
Levinson, Stephen. C.
1979 Activity types and language. Linguistics 17(5/6). 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lytra, Vally
2007 Play frames and social identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, Nicci & Tim Grant
2016 “You have ruined this entire experiment… shall we stop talking now?”: Orientations to the experimental setting as an interactional resource. Discourse, Context & Media 141. 63–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masling, Joseph
1966 Role-related behavior of the subject and psychologist and its effects upon psychological data. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 141. 67–103.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Torin & Jill A. Fisher
2010 Benefits of ‘observer effects’: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Research 10(3). 357–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orne, Martin T.
1962 On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist 17(11). 776–783. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1969 Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. In Robert Rosenthal & Ralph L. Rosnow (eds.), Artifacts in behavioral research, 143–179. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Orne, Martin T. & Wayne G. Whitehouse
2000 Demand characteristics. In Alan E. Kazdin (ed.), Encyclopaedia of psychology, 469–470. Washington: American Psychological Association and Oxford Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Persson, Andre
2019 Framing social interaction: Continuities and cracks in Goffman’s frame analysis. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Petruck, Miriam
1996 Frame semantics. In Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–13. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Piotrowski, Andrzej
1987 Erving Goffman’s perspective on interaction ritual. The Polish Sociological Bulletin 791. 19–29.Google Scholar
Priego-Valverde, Béatrice
2003 L’humour dans la conversation familière: Description et analyse linguistiques [Humor in familiar conversation: Description and linguistic analysis]. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
2012 Speaking through other voices: Conversational humour as a polyphonic phenomenon. In Clara-Ubaldina Lorda & Patrick Zabalbeascoa (eds.), Spaces of polyphony, 43–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2020 “Stop kidding, I’m serious”: Failed humor in French conversations. In Salvatore Attardo (ed.), Script-based semantics, 191–225. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Milton J.
1969 The conditions and consequences of evaluation apprehension. In Robert Rosenthal & Ralph Rosnow (eds.), Artifact in behavioral research, 279–349. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schick, Laurie
2008 Breaking frame in a role-play simulation: A language socialization perspective. Simulation & Gaming 39(2). 184–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Jill F., Aris Solomon, Nathan L. Joseph & Simon D. Norton
2013 Impression management, myth creation and fabrication in private social and environmental reporting: Insights from Erving Goffman. Accounting, Organizations and Society 38(3). 195–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speer, Susan A.
2002 ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse studies 4(4). 511–525.Google Scholar
Speer, Susan A. & Ian Hutchby
2003 From ethics to analytics: Aspects of participants’ orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology 37(2). 315–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strohmetz, David B. & Ralph L. Rosnow
1994 A mediational model of research artifacts. In Jerzy Brzeziński (ed.), Probability in theory-building: Experimental and nonexperimental approaches to scientific research in psychology, 177–196. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Strong, Philip M.
1988 Minor courtesies and macro structures. In Paul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 161–227. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
(ed.) 1993 Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1993 What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse, 14–56. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006 Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk 26(4–5). 597–617. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah & Cynthia Wallat
1993 Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse, 57–76. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2001 Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation. DOI logo
2005 Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 237–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina & Daniel Z. Kádár
2017 Convention and ritual (im)politeness. In Jonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 171–195. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Jef
1985 Goffman’s frame analysis and modern micro-sociological paradigms. In Horst Jürgen Helle & Shmuel N. Eisenstadt (eds.), Micro-sociological theory, 71–100. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar