1887
Volume 29, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22009.mil
2023-02-02
2024-04-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Attardo, Salvatore
    2020a Scripts, frames, and other semantic objects. InSalvatore Attardo (ed.), Script-based semantics: Foundations and applications. Essays in honor of Victor Raskin, 11–42. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501511707‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511707-002 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2020bThe linguistics of humor: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791270.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  3. 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 Linguisticos25(1). 43–53. 10.34019/1982‑2243.2021.v25.34095
    https://doi.org/10.34019/1982-2243.2021.v25.34095 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bateson, Gregory
    1972Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself. New York: Ballantine.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bednarek, Monika A.
    2005 Frames revisited: The coherence-inducing function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics37(5). 685–705. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bellah, Robert N.
    2005 Durkheim and ritual. InJeffrey C. Alexander & Philip Smith (eds.), The Cambridge companion to Durkheim, 183–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CCOL9780521806725.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CCOL9780521806725.008 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Caffi, Claudia
    2007Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2013 Mitigation. InMarina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 235–286. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214383.257
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.257 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chafe, Wallace L.
    1980The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Clift, Rebecca
    1999 Irony in conversation. Language in Society28(4). 523–553. 10.1017/S0047404599004029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599004029 [Google Scholar]
  12. Davies, Catherine E.
    1984 Joint joking: Improvisational humorous episodes in conversation. InClaudia Brugman & Monica Macaulay (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 360–371. Berkeley, CA: University of California. 10.3765/bls.v10i0.3177
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v10i0.3177 [Google Scholar]
  13. Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schueteze-Coburnm & Danae Paolino
    1992 Discourse transcription. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics41. 1–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ducrot, Oswald
    1984Le dire et le dit [The saying and the said]. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Durkheim, Emile
    1912The elementary forms of religious life. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ekman, Paul & Wally V. Friesen
    2002Facial Action Coding System: A technique for the measurement of facial movement. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. https://www.paulekman.com/facial-action-coding-system/
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ensink, Titus & Sauer, Christopher
    2003 Social-functional and cognitive approaches to discourse interpretation. InTitus Ensink & Christopher Sauer (eds.), Framing and perspectivising in discourse, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.111.02ens
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.111.02ens [Google Scholar]
  18. Ergül, Hilal
    2021 Mitigating oral corrective feedback through linguistic strategies and smiling. Journal of Pragmatics1831. 142–153. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.07.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.07.018 [Google Scholar]
  19. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 1974Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1981aForms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1981b A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology10(1). 60–68. 10.2307/2067804
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2067804 [Google Scholar]
  23. 1983 The interaction order. American Sociological Review481. 1–17. 10.2307/2095141
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141 [Google Scholar]
  24. Goodwin, Charles
    2006 Interactive footing. InElizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486654.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486654.003 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodwin, Marjorie H.
    1996 Shifting frame. InDan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kyratzis & Jiansheng Guo (eds.), Social Interaction, social context, and language, 71–82. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gordon, Cynthia
    2002 “I’m mommy and you’re Natalie”: Role-reversal and embedded frames in mother-child discourse. Language in Society31(5). 679–720. 10.1017/S004740450231501X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450231501X [Google Scholar]
  27. 2008 A (p) parent play: Blending frames and reframing in family talk. Language in Society37(3). 319–349. 10.1017/S0047404508080536
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404508080536 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2012 Beyond the observer’s paradox: The audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity. Qualitative Research13(3). 299–317. 10.1177/1468794112442771
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112442771 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2015 Framing and positioning. InDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 324–345. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Grice, Herbert P.
    1989Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gumperz, John J.
    1977 Socio-cultural knowledge in conversational inference. InMuriel Saville-Troyke (ed.), Linguistics and anthropology, 191–211. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 1982Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  33. 1996 The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational inference. InJohn J. Gumperz & Stephen. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 374–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gumperz, John. J. & Deborah Tannen
    1979 Individual and social differences in language use. InCharles J. Fillmore, Daniel Kempler & William S.-Y. Wang (eds.), Individual differences in language ability and language behavior, 305–325. New York: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑255950‑1.50024‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-255950-1.50024-X [Google Scholar]
  35. Hazel, Spencer
    2016 The paradox from within: Research participants doing-being-observed. Qualitative Research16(4). 446–467. 10.1177/1468794115596216
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115596216 [Google Scholar]
  36. House, Juliane & Daniel Z. Kádár
    2021Cross-cultural pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108954587
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108954587 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoyle, Susan M.
    1993 Participation frameworks in sportscasting play: Imaginary and literal footings. InDeborah Tannen (ed.) Framing in discourse, 114–145. New York: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hymes, Dell
    1972 Models of the interaction of language and social life. InJohn J. Gumperz & Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Jacobsen, Michael H. & Soren Kristiansen
    2015The social thought of Erving Goffman. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381725
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381725 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kádár, Daniel Z.
    2013Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230393059
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230393059 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2017Politeness, impoliteness and ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107280465
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107280465 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kádár, Daniel Z. & Juliane House
    2019 Ritual frame and politeness markers. Pragmatics & Society10(4). 639–647. 10.1075/ps.18079.kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.18079.kad [Google Scholar]
  43. 2020a Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Pragmatics30(1). 142–168. 10.1075/prag.19018.kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19018.kad [Google Scholar]
  44. 2020b The pragmatics of ritual: An introduction. Pragmatics30(1). 1–14. 10.1075/prag.19016.kad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19016.kad [Google Scholar]
  45. Keltner, Dacher & Cameron Anderson
    2000 Saving face for Darwin: The functions and uses of embarrassment. Current Directions in Psychological Science9(6). 187–192. 10.1111/1467‑8721.00091
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00091 [Google Scholar]
  46. Keltner, Dacher & Brenda N. Buswell
    1997 Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin122(3). 250–270. 10.1037/0033‑2909.122.3.250
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.250 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kendon, Adam
    2004Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511807572
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807572 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kotthoff, Helga
    1999 Coherent keying in conversational humour: Contextualising joint fictionalisation. InWolfram 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. 10.1075/pbns.63.10kot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63.10kot [Google Scholar]
  49. Labov, William
    1972 Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society1(1). 97–120. 10.1017/S0047404500006576
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006576 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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 Research72(4). 362–375. 10.1007/s00426‑007‑0122‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-007-0122-6 [Google Scholar]
  51. Larsen-Freeman, Diane, & Lynne Cameron
    2008 Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. The Modern Language Journal92(2). 200–213. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2008.00714.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00714.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Leech, Geoffrey & Martin Weisser
    2003a Generic speech act annotation for task-oriented dialogues. InDawn Archer, Paul Rayson, Andrew Wilson & Tony McEnery (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference, 441–446. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2003b SPAAC speech-act annotation scheme [White paper]. RetrievedJanuary 1, 2019fromLancaster University: ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/SPAAC/SPAAC%20Annotation%20Scheme1.pdf
  54. Levinson, Stephen. C.
    1979 Activity types and language. Linguistics17(5/6). 365–399. 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lytra, Vally
    2007Play frames and social identities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.163
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.163 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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 & Media141. 63–70. 10.1016/j.dcm.2016.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Masling, Joseph
    1966 Role-related behavior of the subject and psychologist and its effects upon psychological data. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation141. 67–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Mohanan, Torin & Jill A. Fisher
    2010 Benefits of ‘observer effects’: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Research10(3). 357–376. 10.1177/1468794110362874
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794110362874 [Google Scholar]
  59. Orne, Martin T.
    1962 On the social psychology of the psychological experiment: With particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist17(11). 776–783. 10.1037/h0043424
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043424 [Google Scholar]
  60. 1969 Demand characteristics and the concept of quasi-controls. InRobert Rosenthal & Ralph L. Rosnow (eds.), Artifacts in behavioral research, 143–179. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Orne, Martin T. & Wayne G. Whitehouse
    2000 Demand characteristics. InAlan E. Kazdin (ed.), Encyclopaedia of psychology, 469–470. Washington: American Psychological Association and Oxford Press. 10.1037/10517‑173
    https://doi.org/10.1037/10517-173 [Google Scholar]
  62. Persson, Andre
    2019Framing social interaction: Continuities and cracks in Goffman’s frame analysis. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Petruck, Miriam
    1996 Frame semantics. InJef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert & Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–13. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Piotrowski, Andrzej
    1987 Erving Goffman’s perspective on interaction ritual. The Polish Sociological Bulletin791. 19–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Priego-Valverde, Béatrice
    2003L’humour dans la conversation familière: Description et analyse linguistiques [Humor in familiar conversation: Description and linguistic analysis]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 2012 Speaking through other voices: Conversational humour as a polyphonic phenomenon. InClara-Ubaldina Lorda & Patrick Zabalbeascoa (eds.), Spaces of polyphony, 43–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.15.05ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.15.05ch3 [Google Scholar]
  67. 2020 “Stop kidding, I’m serious”: Failed humor in French conversations. InSalvatore Attardo (ed.), Script-based semantics, 191–225. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501511707‑010
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501511707-010 [Google Scholar]
  68. Rosenberg, Milton J.
    1969 The conditions and consequences of evaluation apprehension. InRobert Rosenthal & Ralph Rosnow (eds.), Artifact in behavioral research, 279–349. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Schick, Laurie
    2008 Breaking frame in a role-play simulation: A language socialization perspective. Simulation & Gaming39(2). 184–197. 10.1177/1046878107310607
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878107310607 [Google Scholar]
  70. 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 Society38(3). 195–213. 10.1016/j.aos.2013.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2013.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  71. Speer, Susan A.
    2002 ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction?Discourse studies4(4). 511–525.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Speer, Susan A. & Ian Hutchby
    2003 From ethics to analytics: Aspects of participants’ orientations to the presence and relevance of recording devices. Sociology37(2). 315–337. 10.1177/0038038503037002006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038503037002006 [Google Scholar]
  73. Strohmetz, David B. & Ralph L. Rosnow
    1994 A mediational model of research artifacts. InJerzy Brzeziński (ed.), Probability in theory-building: Experimental and nonexperimental approaches to scientific research in psychology, 177–196. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Strong, Philip M.
    1988 Minor courtesies and macro structures. InPaul Drew & Anthony Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, 161–227. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Tannen, Deborah
    (ed.) 1993Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 1993 What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. InDeborah Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse, 14–56. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 2006 Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk26(4–5). 597–617. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.024 [Google Scholar]
  78. Tannen, Deborah & Cynthia Wallat
    1993 Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. InDeborah Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse, 57–76. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Terkourafi, Marina
    2001 Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation. 10.1.1.121.3616&rep=rep1&type=pdf
    https://doi.org/10.1.1.121.3616&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  80. 2005 Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research1(2). 237–262. 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.237 [Google Scholar]
  81. Terkourafi, Marina & Daniel Z. Kádár
    2017 Convention and ritual (im)politeness. InJonathan Culpeper, Michael Haugh & Daniel Z. Kádár (eds.), The Palgrave handbook of linguistic (im)politeness, 171–195. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑37508‑7_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-37508-7_8 [Google Scholar]
  82. Verhoeven, Jef
    1985 Goffman’s frame analysis and modern micro-sociological paradigms. InHorst Jürgen Helle & Shmuel N. Eisenstadt (eds.), Micro-sociological theory, 71–100. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22009.mil
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.22009.mil
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): experimental setting; face; frame; frame breach; key; mitigation; play
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error