Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 29:1 (2022) ► pp.135–159

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

“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
Published online: 2 February 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22009.mil
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.
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
References (82)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020b. The linguistics of humor: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind: A revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika A. 2005. Frames revisited: The coherence-inducing function of frames. Journal of Pragmatics 37(5). 685–705. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caffi, Claudia. 2007. Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Mitigation. In Marina Sbisà & Ken Turner (eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions, 235–286. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 1999. Irony in conversation. Language in Society 28(4). 523–553. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit [The saying and the said]. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile. 1912. The elementary forms of religious life. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ergül, Hilal. 2021. Mitigating oral corrective feedback through linguistic strategies and smiling. Journal of Pragmatics 1831. 142–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981a. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981b. A reply to Denzin and Keller. Contemporary Sociology 10(1). 60–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1983. The interaction order. American Sociological Review 481. 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 2006. Interactive footing. In Elizabeth Holt & Rebecca Clift (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. A (p) parent play: Blending frames and reframing in family talk. Language in Society 37(3). 319–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Beyond the observer’s paradox: The audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity. Qualitative Research 13(3). 299–317. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hazel, Spencer. 2016. The paradox from within: Research participants doing-being-observed. Qualitative Research 16(4). 446–467. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
House, Juliane & Daniel Z. Kádár. 2021. Cross-cultural pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Michael H. & Soren Kristiansen. 2015. The social thought of Erving Goffman. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z. 2013. Relational rituals and communication: Ritual interaction in groups. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Politeness, impoliteness and ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Daniel Z. & Juliane House. 2019. Ritual frame and politeness markers. Pragmatics & Society 10(4). 639–647. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020a. Ritual frames: A contrastive pragmatic approach. Pragmatics 30(1). 142–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020b. The pragmatics of ritual: An introduction. Pragmatics 30(1). 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keltner, Dacher & Brenda N. Buswell. 1997. Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin 122(3). 250–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mohanan, Torin & Jill A. Fisher. 2010. Benefits of ‘observer effects’: Lessons from the field. Qualitative Research 10(3). 357–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Persson, Andre. 2019. Framing social interaction: Continuities and cracks in Goffman’s frame analysis. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Piotrowski, Andrzej. 1987. Erving Goffman’s perspective on interaction ritual. The Polish Sociological Bulletin 791. 19–29.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Schick, Laurie. 2008. Breaking frame in a role-play simulation: A language socialization perspective. Simulation & Gaming 39(2). 184–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Speer, Susan A. 2002. ‘Natural’ and ‘contrived’ data: A sustainable distinction? Discourse studies 4(4). 511–525.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah (ed.). 1993. Framing in discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk 26(4–5). 597–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina. 2001. Politeness in Cypriot Greek: A frame-based approach. Cambridge: University of Cambridge dissertation.
. 2005. Beyond the micro-level in politeness research. Journal of Politeness Research 1(2). 237–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue