Framing in interactive academic talk: A conversation-analytic perspective

Yun Pan

Abstract

Framing involves how language users conceptualize what is happening in interaction for situated interpretation of roles, purposes, expectations, and sequences of action, thus show significant conceptual relevance to the analysis of routinized institutional communication. Having established a working definition of framing based on an intensive review of previous research, this study investigates university students’ and tutors’ framing behaviors in interactive small group talk. Two types of framing-in-interaction, -alternate framing of a single situation and co-framing within/beyond speaker role boundary-, are identified, examined, and characterized from a conversation-analytic perspective. The findings suggest that alternate framings co-occur with traceable interactional devices for sequential organization when the single situation at talk takes on divergent meaning potentials to be accessed. Co-framings happen when at least one (group) of participants is highly goal-oriented, showing conditional relevance to the prior courses of action and more explicit negotiation of epistemic stances. Framing, therefore, can be arguably taken as a global organization resource to characterize contextualization in institutional communication.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

Socio-interactional research in recent decades has been passionately devoted to mechanisms of verbal communication in institutional exchanges. Researchers in Conversation Analysis (CA) have found that the infrastructure which is universally applicable to informal, ordinary conversations do not always hold in specific institutional contexts (Kendrick et al. 2020). When the institutional framework is invoked by professionals (Nielsen et al. 2012), a global dimension for discursive organization applies beyond the immediate turns and sequences. With meaning constructed (Heritage 2005) based upon mutual expectations, procedural limits, and situated expertise (Dall and Sarangi 2018), the evidence of interactive framing shows (O’Malley 2009).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Barsalou, Lawrence W.
1992 “Frames, Concepts and Conceptual Fields.” In Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organizations, eds. by Adrienne Lehrer, and Kittay Eva Feder, 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory
1987Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Beach, Wayne A.
1993 “Transitional Regularities for Casual “Okay” Usages.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 325–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2005 “Frames Revisited – the Coherence-inducing Function of Frames.” Journal of Pragmatics 37(5): 685–705. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Betz, Emma
2013 “Quote-unquote in One Variety of German: Two Interactional Functions of Pivot Constructions Used as Frames for Quotation in Siebenbürger Sächsisch.” Journal of Pragmatics 54: 16–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
1988 “Adverbial Stance Types in English.” Discourse Processes 11: 1–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. Edward
2003 “Always Use a Modem: Analyzing Frames of Erotic Play, Performance, and Power in Cyberspace.” Electronic Journal of Communication 13.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
1999 “Irony in Conversation.” Language in Society 28(4): 523–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana
2001Semantic Leaps: Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dall, Tanja, and Srikant Sarangi
2018 “Ways of ‘Appealing to the Institution’ in Interprofessional Rehabilitation Team Decision-Making.” Journal of Pragmatics 129: 102–119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf
2012 “How Does ‘Cognition’ Matter to the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction?Language Sciences 34(6): 746–767. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Tim Murphey
2003Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, eds. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. J.
1982 “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by In-Seok Yang, 111–137. Soeul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
2006 “Frame Semantics.” In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. by Geeraerts Dirk, 373–400. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Janet M.
2003 “The Influence of Speaker Roles on Discourse Marker Use.” Journal of Pragmatics 35: 23–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Rod
1998 “Between Speaking and Listening: The Vocalisation of Understandings.” Applied Linguistics 19(2): 204–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “The Right Connections: Acknowledging Epistemic Progression in Talk.” Language in Society 36: 319–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gass, Susan, Alison Mackey and Lauren Ross-Feldman
2005 “Task-Based Interactions in Classroom and Laboratory Settings.” Language Learning 55(4): 575–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1963Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Colophon Books.Google Scholar
1981aForms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
1981b “A Reply to Denzin and Keller.” Contemporary Sociology 10 (1): 60–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1983 “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review 48 (1): 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Charles
1984 “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, eds. by J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 225–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007 “Interactive Footing.” In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, eds. by Elizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
1996 “Shifting Frame.” In Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, eds. by Dan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kryatzis, and Jiansheng Guo, 71–82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia
2001 “Framing and Positioning.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, eds. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 324–345. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
2002 “I’m Mommy and You’re Natalie’: Role-Reversal and Embedded Frames in Mother–Child Discourse.” Language in Society 31: 679–720. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Intertextuality in Family Discourse: Shared Prior Text as a Resource for Framing.” Dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
2008 “A(p)parent Play: Blending Frames and Reframing in Family Talk.” Language in Society 37: 319–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Making Meanings, Creating Family: Intertextuality and Framing in Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “Framing and Positioning.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, eds. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 324–345. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. J.
1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992a “Contextualization and Understanding.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, eds. by Alessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1992b “Contextualization Revisited.” In The Contextualization of Language, eds. by Peter Auer, and Aldo Di Luzio, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J.
2003 “Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, eds. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 215–228. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hamawand, Zeki
2016Semantics: A Cognitive Account of Linguistic Meaning. United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar
Hata, Kazuki
2016 “Contrast-Terminal: The Sequential Placement of Trailoff but in Extensive Courses of Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 101: 138–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John
1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
2005 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk.” In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, eds. by Kristine L. Fitch, and Robert E. Sanders, 103–147. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Action Formation and Its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds.” Discourse Studies 15(5): 551–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Maxwell Atkinson
1984Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
2010Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, Janet, and Maria Stubbe
2015Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hougaard, Anders
2008 “Compression in Interaction.” In Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction, eds. by Todd Oakley, and Anders Hougaard, 179–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Houtkoop, Hanneke, and Harrie Mazeland
1985 “Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics 9: 595–619. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hutchby, Ian
1999 “Frame Attunement and Footing in the Organisation of Talk Radio Openings.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(1): 41–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1968 “The Ethnography of Speaking.” In Readings in the Sociology of Language, ed. by Joshua A. Fishman, 99–138. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jacknick, Christine M.
2011 “Breaking in is Hard to Do: How Students Negotiate Classroom Activity Shifts.” Classroom Discourse 2(1): 20–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1983 “On a Failed Hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as Overlap Vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers Lang. Lit 28: 29–33.Google Scholar
1984 “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm hm’.” Papers in Linguistics 17: 197–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “A Case of Transcriptional Stereotyping.” Journal of Pragmatics 26: 159–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by Gene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kendon, Adam
1992 “The Negotiation of Context in Face-to-Face Interaction.” In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, eds. by Alessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 323–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendrick, Kobin H., Penelope Brown, Mark Dingemanse, Simeon Floyd, Sonja Gipper, Kaoru Hayano, Elliott Hoey, Gertie Hoymann, Elizabeth Manrique, Giovanni Rossi, and Stephen C. Levinson
2020 “Sequence Organization: A Universal Infrastructure for Social Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 168: 119–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Friederike and Selting, Margret
2013 “Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics.” The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. 1-5.Google Scholar
Kidwell, Mardi, and Don H. Zimmerman
2007 “Joint Attention as Action.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 592–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C., and Francisco Torreira
2015 “Timing in Turn-Taking and Its Implications for Processing Models of Language.” Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, Gene H. and Celia Kitzinger
2007 “Extraction and Aggregation in the Repair of Individual and Collective Self-Reference.” Discourse Studies, 9: 526–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, Anthony J.
2007An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2011 “Painful to Playful: Quotidian Frames in the Conversational Discourse of Older Japanese Women.” Language in Society 40: 591–616. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 “The Power of the Ordinary: Quotidian Framing as a Narrative Strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics 86: 100–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, Michael
2003 “Talking Back: “Small” Interactional Response Tokens in Everyday Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 36(1): 33–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Minsky, Marvin
1974 “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” Artificial Intelligence 306: 1–82.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Mie Femø, Søren Beck Nielsen, Gitte Gravengaard, and Brian Due
2012 “Interactional Functions of Invoking Procedure in Institutional Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1457–1473. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte and Clarke, D. David
2000 “Semantic Fields and Frames: Historical Explorations of the Interface between Language, Action and Cognition.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: 125–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oakley, Todd and Anders Hougaard
2008Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne, and Svenja Adolphs
2008 “Response Tokens in British and Irish Discourse: Corpus, Context and Variational Pragmatics.” In Variational Pragmatics, eds. by P. Schneider Klaus, and Anne Barron, 69–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, Mary-Pat
2009 “Falling between Frames: Institutional Discourse and Disability in Radio.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 346–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pallotti, Gabriele
2009 “Conversation Analysis: Methodology, Machinery and Application to Specific Settings.” In Conversation Analysis and Language for Specific Purposes, eds. by Hugo Bowles, and Paul Seedhouse, 37–67. Bern: Peter Lang AG.Google Scholar
Pan, Yun
2020 “Meaning Construction in Interactive Academic Talk: A Conversation-Analytic Approach to Mental Spaces.” Pragmatics & Cognition 26(2/3): 422–454.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam, and Deanna Wong
2015 “Turn Management and Backchannels.” In Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, eds. by Aijmer Karin, and Christoph Rühlemann, 408–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dis-preferred Turn Shapes.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, eds. by J. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Potter, Jonathan, and Hedwig te Molder
2005Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul
2008 “From Key Words to Key Semantic Domains.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, Branca, and Susan Hoyle
2009 “Frame Analysis.” In Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, eds. by Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Ostman, and Jef Verschueren, 74–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rühlemann, Christoph
2017 “Integrating Corpus-Linguistic and Conversation-Analytic Transcription in XML: The Case of Backchannels and Overlap in Storytelling Interaction.” Corpus Pragmatics 1: 201–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics: A Guide for Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef, Michael Ellsworth, Miriam R. L. Petruck, Christopher R. Johnson, and Jan Scheffczyk
2006 “FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice.” International Computer Science Institute, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50(4): 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A.
1982 “Discourse as Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of “uh huh” and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” In Analyzing Discourse, Text, and Talk, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50(2): 101–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996a “Confirming Allusions: Towards an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology 104: 161–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996b “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” In Interaction and Grammar, eds. by Elinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra, A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sert, Olcay, and Steve Walsh
2012 “The Interactional Management of Claims of Insufficient Knowledge in English Language Classrooms.” Language and Education 27(6): 542–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” In The Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, eds. by Tanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, Michael
2001 “On Inference Theories and Code Theories: Corpus Evidence for Semantic Schemas.” Text 21(3): 437–456.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1993a “Introduction.” In Framing in Discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1993b “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
2005Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse.” In Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families, eds. by Deborah Tannen, Shari Kendall, and Cynthia Gordon, 49–69. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat
1986 “Medical Professionals and Parents: A Linguistic Analysis of Communication across Contexts.” Language in Society 15(3): 295–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination Interview.” In Framing in Discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 57–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel
1991 “Conversational Style in British and American English: The Case of Backchannels.” In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, eds. by Karin Aijmer, and Bengt Altenberg, 254–271. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Tovares, Alla V.
2016 “Going Off-Script and Reframing the Frame: The Dialogic Intertwining of the Centripetal and Centrifugal Voices in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearings.” Discourse & Society 27(5): 554–573. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun
2012 “The Field of Epistemic Discourse Analysis.” Discourse Studies 15(5): 479–499.Google Scholar
Vatanen, Anna
2018 “Responding in Early Overlap: Recognitional Onsets in Assertion Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 51(2): 107–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Steve
2014Newcastle University Corpus of Academic Spoken English (NUCASE). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, Steve, and Dawn Knight
2016 “Analyzing Spoken Discourse in University Small Group Teaching.” In Creating and Digitizing Language Corpora, eds. by Karen P. Corrigan, and Adam Mearns, 291–319. London: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar