Volume 32, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



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 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, - of a single situation and 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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1992 “Frames, Concepts and Conceptual Fields.” InFrames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organizations, eds. byAdrienne Lehrer, and Kittay Eva Feder, 21–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bateson, Gregory
    1987Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. New York: Ballantine Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beach, Wayne A.
    1993 “Transitional Regularities for Casual “Okay” Usages.” Journal of Pragmatics19: 325–352. 10.1016/0378‑2166(93)90092‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(93)90092-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bednarek, Monika
    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]
  5. 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 Pragmatics54: 16–34. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
    1988 “Adverbial Stance Types in English.” Discourse Processes11: 1–34. 10.1080/01638538809544689
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538809544689 [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, J. Edward
    2003 “Always Use a Modem: Analyzing Frames of Erotic Play, Performance, and Power in Cyberspace.” Electronic Journal of Communication13.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clift, Rebecca
    1999 “Irony in Conversation.” Language in Society28(4): 523–553. 10.1017/S0047404599004029
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599004029 [Google Scholar]
  9. Coulson, Seana
    2001Semantic Leaps: Frame-shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551352
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551352 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dall, Tanja, and Srikant Sarangi
    2018 “Ways of ‘Appealing to the Institution’ in Interprofessional Rehabilitation Team Decision-Making.” Journal of Pragmatics129: 102–119. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.012 [Google Scholar]
  11. Deppermann, Arnulf
    2012 “How Does ‘Cognition’ Matter to the Analysis of Talk-in-Interaction?” Language Sciences34(6): 746–767. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dörnyei, Zoltán, and Tim Murphey
    2003Group Dynamics in the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667138
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667138 [Google Scholar]
  13. Drew, Paul, and John Heritage
    1992 “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction.” InTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, eds. byPaul Drew, and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Fillmore, Charles. J.
    1982 “Frame Semantics.” InLinguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. byIn-Seok Yang, 111–137. Soeul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2006 “Frame Semantics.” InCognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, ed. byGeeraerts Dirk, 373–400. Berlin: Monton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.373 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fuller, Janet M.
    2003 “The Influence of Speaker Roles on Discourse Marker Use.” Journal of Pragmatics35: 23–45. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00065‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00065-6 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gardner, Rod
    1998 “Between Speaking and Listening: The Vocalisation of Understandings.” Applied Linguistics19(2): 204–224. 10.1093/applin/19.2.204
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.2.204 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2007 “The Right Connections: Acknowledging Epistemic Progression in Talk.” Language in Society36: 319–341. 10.1017/S0047404507070169
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404507070169 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gass, Susan, Alison Mackey and Lauren Ross-Feldman
    2005 “Task-Based Interactions in Classroom and Laboratory Settings.” Language Learning55(4): 575–611. 10.1111/j.0023‑8333.2005.00318.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00318.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Goffman, Erving
    1963Behavior in Public Places. New York: The Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1974Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper Colophon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1981aForms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1981b “A Reply to Denzin and Keller.” Contemporary Sociology10 (1): 60–68. 10.2307/2067804
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2067804 [Google Scholar]
  24. 1983 “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review48 (1): 1–17. 10.2307/2095141
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2095141 [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodwin, Charles
    1984 “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, eds. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 225–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2007 “Interactive Footing.” InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, eds. byElizabeth Holt, and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodwin, Marjorie Harness
    1996 “Shifting Frame.” InSocial Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, eds. byDan Isaac Slobin, Julie Gerhardt, Amy Kryatzis, and Jiansheng Guo, 71–82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gordon, Cynthia
    2001 “Framing and Positioning.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, eds. byDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 324–345. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2002 “I’m Mommy and You’re Natalie’: Role-Reversal and Embedded Frames in Mother–Child Discourse.” Language in Society31: 679–720. 10.1017/S004740450231501X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450231501X [Google Scholar]
  30. 2003 “Intertextuality in Family Discourse: Shared Prior Text as a Resource for Framing.” Dissertation, Georgetown University.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2008 “A(p)parent Play: Blending Frames and Reframing in Family Talk.” Language in Society37: 319–49. 10.1017/S0047404508080536
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404508080536 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2009Making Meanings, Creating Family: Intertextuality and Framing in Family Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373820.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373820.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2015 “Framing and Positioning.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, eds. byDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 324–345. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gumperz, John. J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1992a “Contextualization and Understanding.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, eds. byAlessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1992b “Contextualization Revisited.” InThe Contextualization of Language, eds. byPeter Auer, and Aldo Di Luzio, 39–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.22.04gum
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.22.04gum [Google Scholar]
  37. Gumperz, John J.
    2003 “Interactional Sociolinguistics: A Personal Perspective.” InThe Handbook of Discourse Analysis, eds. byDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 215–228. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hamawand, Zeki
    2016Semantics: A Cognitive Account of Linguistic Meaning. United Kingdom: Equinox Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hata, Kazuki
    2016 “Contrast-Terminal: The Sequential Placement of Trailoff but in Extensive Courses of Action.” Journal of Pragmatics101: 138–154. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Heritage, John
    1984Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2005 “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk.” InHandbook of Language and Social Interaction, eds. byKristine L. Fitch, and Robert E. Sanders, 103–147. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2012 “Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45(1): 1–29. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646684 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2013 “Action Formation and Its Epistemic (and Other) Backgrounds.” Discourse Studies15(5): 551–578. 10.1177/1461445613501449
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501449 [Google Scholar]
  44. Heritage, John, and Maxwell Atkinson
    1984Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Heritage, John, and Steven Clayman
    2010Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities and Institutions. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley. 10.1002/9781444318135
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135 [Google Scholar]
  46. Holmes, Janet, and Maria Stubbe
    2015Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315750231
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315750231 [Google Scholar]
  47. Hougaard, Anders
    2008 “Compression in Interaction.” InMental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction, eds. byTodd Oakley, and Anders Hougaard, 179–208. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.170.07hou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.07hou [Google Scholar]
  48. Houtkoop, Hanneke, and Harrie Mazeland
    1985 “Turns and Discourse Units in Everyday Conversation.” Journal of Pragmatics9: 595–619. 10.1016/0378‑2166(85)90055‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(85)90055-4 [Google Scholar]
  49. Hutchby, Ian
    1999 “Frame Attunement and Footing in the Organisation of Talk Radio Openings.” Journal of Sociolinguistics3(1): 41–63. 10.1111/1467‑9481.00062
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00062 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hymes, Dell
    1968 “The Ethnography of Speaking.” InReadings in the Sociology of Language, ed. byJoshua A. Fishman, 99–138. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110805376.99
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805376.99 [Google Scholar]
  51. Jacknick, Christine M.
    2011 “Breaking in is Hard to Do: How Students Negotiate Classroom Activity Shifts.” Classroom Discourse2(1): 20–38. 10.1080/19463014.2011.562656
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.562656 [Google Scholar]
  52. Jefferson, Gail
    1983 “On a Failed Hypothesis: ‘Conjunctionals’ as Overlap Vulnerable.” Tilburg Papers Lang. Lit28: 29–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 1984 “Notes on a Systematic Deployment of the Acknowledgement Tokens ‘Yeah’ and ‘Mm hm’.” Papers in Linguistics17: 197–216. 10.1080/08351818409389201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  54. 1996 “A Case of Transcriptional Stereotyping.” Journal of Pragmatics26: 159–170. 10.1016/0378‑2166(96)00010‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(96)00010-0 [Google Scholar]
  55. 2004 “Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byGene H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  56. Kendon, Adam
    1992 “The Negotiation of Context in Face-to-Face Interaction.” InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, eds. byAlessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 323–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 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 Pragmatics168: 119–138. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kern, Friederike and Selting, Margret
    2013 “Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics.” The Encyclopaedia of Applied Linguistics. 1-5.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Kidwell, Mardi, and Don H. Zimmerman
    2007 “Joint Attention as Action.” Journal of Pragmatics39: 592–611. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.012 [Google Scholar]
  60. Levinson, Stephen C., and Francisco Torreira
    2015 “Timing in Turn-Taking and Its Implications for Processing Models of Language.” Frontiers in Psychology6: 1–17. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731 [Google Scholar]
  61. Lerner, Gene H. and Celia Kitzinger
    2007 “Extraction and Aggregation in the Repair of Individual and Collective Self-Reference.” Discourse Studies, 9: 526–57. 10.1177/1461445607079165
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607079165 [Google Scholar]
  62. Liddicoat, Anthony J.
    2007An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Matsumoto, Yoshiko
    2011 “Painful to Playful: Quotidian Frames in the Conversational Discourse of Older Japanese Women.” Language in Society40: 591–616. 10.1017/S0047404511000698
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404511000698 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2015 “The Power of the Ordinary: Quotidian Framing as a Narrative Strategy.” Journal of Pragmatics86: 100–105. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  65. McCarthy, Michael
    2003 “Talking Back: “Small” Interactional Response Tokens in Everyday Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction36(1): 33–63. 10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI3601_3 [Google Scholar]
  66. Minsky, Marvin
    1974 “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” Artificial Intelligence306: 1–82.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Nielsen, Mie Femø, Søren Beck Nielsen, Gitte Gravengaard, and Brian Due
    2012 “Interactional Functions of Invoking Procedure in Institutional Settings.” Journal of Pragmatics44: 1457–1473. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  68. Nerlich, Brigitte and Clarke, D. David
    2000 “Semantic Fields and Frames: Historical Explorations of the Interface between Language, Action and Cognition.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 125–150. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00042‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00042-9 [Google Scholar]
  69. Oakley, Todd and Anders Hougaard
    2008Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.170
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170 [Google Scholar]
  70. O’Keeffe, Anne, and Svenja Adolphs
    2008 “Response Tokens in British and Irish Discourse: Corpus, Context and Variational Pragmatics.” InVariational Pragmatics, eds. byP. Schneider Klaus, and Anne Barron, 69–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.178.05ok
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.178.05ok [Google Scholar]
  71. O’Malley, Mary-Pat
    2009 “Falling between Frames: Institutional Discourse and Disability in Radio.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 346–356. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  72. Pallotti, Gabriele
    2009 “Conversation Analysis: Methodology, Machinery and Application to Specific Settings.” InConversation Analysis and Language for Specific Purposes, eds. byHugo Bowles, and Paul Seedhouse, 37–67. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Pan, Yun
    2020 “Meaning Construction in Interactive Academic Talk: A Conversation-Analytic Approach to Mental Spaces.” Pragmatics & Cognition26(2/3): 422–454.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Peters, Pam, and Deanna Wong
    2015 “Turn Management and Backchannels.” InCorpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, eds. byAijmer Karin, and Christoph Rühlemann, 408–429. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493.022 [Google Scholar]
  75. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dis-preferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, eds. byJ. Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Potter, Jonathan, and Hedwig te Molder
    2005Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Rayson, Paul
    2008 “From Key Words to Key Semantic Domains.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13(4): 519–549. 10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06ray [Google Scholar]
  78. Ribeiro, Branca, and Susan Hoyle
    2009 “Frame Analysis.” InGrammar, Meaning and Pragmatics, eds. byFrank Brisard, Jan-Ola Ostman, and Jef Verschueren, 74–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.5.05rib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.5.05rib [Google Scholar]
  79. Rühlemann, Christoph
    2017 “Integrating Corpus-Linguistic and Conversation-Analytic Transcription in XML: The Case of Backchannels and Overlap in Storytelling Interaction.” Corpus Pragmatics1: 201–232. 10.1007/s41701‑017‑0018‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-017-0018-7 [Google Scholar]
  80. 2019Corpus Linguistics for Pragmatics: A Guide for Research. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 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]
  82. Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson
    1974 “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language50(4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  83. Schegloff, Emanuel A.
    1982 “Discourse as Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of “uh huh” and Other Things That Come between Sentences.” InAnalyzing Discourse, Text, and Talk, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 1987 “Analyzing Single Episodes of Interaction: An Exercise in Conversation Analysis.” Social Psychology Quarterly50(2): 101–114. 10.2307/2786745
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2786745 [Google Scholar]
  85. 1996a “Confirming Allusions: Towards an Empirical Account of Action.” American Journal of Sociology104: 161–216. 10.1086/230911
    https://doi.org/10.1086/230911 [Google Scholar]
  86. 1996b “Turn Organization: One Intersection of Grammar and Interaction.” InInteraction and Grammar, eds. byElinor Ochs, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Sandra, A. Thompson, 52–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620874.002 [Google Scholar]
  87. Sert, Olcay, and Steve Walsh
    2012 “The Interactional Management of Claims of Insufficient Knowledge in English Language Classrooms.” Language and Education27(6): 542–565. 10.1080/09500782.2012.739174
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2012.739174 [Google Scholar]
  88. Stivers, Tanya, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, eds. byTanya Stivers, Lorenza Mondada, and Jakob Steensig, 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  89. Stubbs, Michael
    2001 “On Inference Theories and Code Theories: Corpus Evidence for Semantic Schemas.” Text21(3): 437–456.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Tannen, Deborah
    1993a “Introduction.” InFraming in Discourse, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 3–13. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 1993b “What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying Expectations.” InFraming in Discourse, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 14–56. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 2005Conversational Style: Analyzing Talk among Friends. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 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]
  94. 2007 “Talking the Dog: Framing Pets as Interactional Resources in Family Discourse.” InFamily Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families, eds. byDeborah Tannen, Shari Kendall, and Cynthia Gordon, 49–69. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313895.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313895.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  95. Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat
    1986 “Medical Professionals and Parents: A Linguistic Analysis of Communication across Contexts.” Language in Society15(3): 295–311. 10.1017/S0047404500011787
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011787 [Google Scholar]
  96. 1993 “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination Interview.” InFraming in Discourse, ed. byDeborah Tannen, 57–76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Tottie, Gunnel
    1991 “Conversational Style in British and American English: The Case of Backchannels.” InEnglish Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, eds. byKarin Aijmer, and Bengt Altenberg, 254–271. New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 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 & Society27(5): 554–573. 10.1177/0957926516651365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516651365 [Google Scholar]
  99. van Dijk, Teun
    2012 “The Field of Epistemic Discourse Analysis.” Discourse Studies15(5): 479–499.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Vatanen, Anna
    2018 “Responding in Early Overlap: Recognitional Onsets in Assertion Sequences.” Research on Language and Social Interaction51(2): 107–126. 10.1080/08351813.2018.1413894
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1413894 [Google Scholar]
  101. Walsh, Steve
    2014Newcastle University Corpus of Academic Spoken English (NUCASE). Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Walsh, Steve, and Dawn Knight
    2016 “Analyzing Spoken Discourse in University Small Group Teaching.” InCreating and Digitizing Language Corpora, eds. byKaren P. Corrigan, and Adam Mearns, 291–319. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑38645‑8_11
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-38645-8_11 [Google Scholar]
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