“Dr. Shelby, that’s a world record!”

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. Attardo, Salvatore
   2020b The 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
   1972 Steps 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
   1987 Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
8. Caffi, Claudia
   2007 Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Caffi, Claudia
   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.
    1980 The 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
    1984 Le dire et le dit [The saying and the said]. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Durkheim, Emile
    1912 The elementary forms of religious life. London: George Allen & Unwin.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Ekman, Paul & Wally V. Friesen
    2002 Facial 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
    1967 Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Goffman, Erving
    1974 Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Goffman, Erving
    1981a Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Goffman, Erving
    1981b A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology10(1). 60–68. 10.2307/2067804
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2067804 [Google Scholar]
23. Goffman, Erving
    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. Gordon, Cynthia
    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. Gordon, Cynthia
    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. Gordon, Cynthia
    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.
    1989 Studies 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. Gumperz, John J.
    1982 Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
33. Gumperz, John J.
    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
    2021 Cross-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
    2015 The social thought of Erving Goffman. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. 10.4135/9781483381725
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381725 [Google Scholar]
40. Kádár, Daniel Z.
    2013 Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230393059
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230393059 [Google Scholar]
41. Kádár, Daniel Z.
    2017 Politeness, 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. Kádár, Daniel Z. & Juliane House
    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. Kádár, Daniel Z. & Juliane House
    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
    2004 Gesture: 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. Leech, Geoffrey & Martin Weisser
    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
    2007 Play 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. Orne, Martin T.
    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
    2019 Framing 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
    2003 L’humour dans la conversation familière: Description et analyse linguistiques [Humor in familiar conversation: Description and linguistic analysis]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Priego-Valverde, Béatrice
    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. Priego-Valverde, Béatrice
    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.) 1993 Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
76. Tannen, Deborah
    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. Tannen, Deborah
    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. Terkourafi, Marina
    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]