transformation of the activity does not occur in a subsequent response position, but rather in the midst of ongoing activity, thus shaping and constituting its meaning as a particular type of event. Thus what the activity comes to be is inherent neither in an abstract set of underlying preconditions defining the speech act nor the speaker's intentions, but rather emerges through the mutual and collaborative framing of the activity in progress by the recipient as well as speaker.
Four examples of frame shifts have been presented in this paper. Though the sequencing structure of a speech activity may propose certain forms of next moves and alignments, participants may selectively operate on talk in progress, through phonological shifts (#1), extracting parts for comment in ways subversive to speaker's projected activity (#2), or recasting its meaning through parody and paralinguistic commentary (#3 and #4). Such commentary may occur during ongoing talk, rather than at talk's boundaries, so that the sense of what the activity has come to be is negotiated in its course. Demonstrations of the way in which talk may be crafted for particular interactive ends -- whether refusing to go along with a projected argument structure (#1) or story line (#2) or taking up a stance which distances oneself from the talk in progress (#3 and #4) -- display some of the optionality available to participants in talk. Rather than buying into the projected type of speech activity under way, participants to talk may "elect to deny the dialogic frame, accept it, or carve out such a format when none is apparent" ( Goffman, 1981, p. 52) through specifiable shifts in frame.
Bakhtin, M. ( 1973). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Ann Arbor: Ardis.
Bourdieu, P. ( 1990). The logic of practice. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Coulter, J. ( 1990). Elementary properties of argument sequences. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction. competence, (pp. 181-204). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis and University Press of America.
Drew, P. ( 1987). Po-faced receipts of teases. Linguistics, 25, 219-253.
Edelsky, C. ( 1981). Who's got the floor? Language in Society, 10,383-421.
Foucault, M. ( 1984). Docile bodies. In P. Rabinow (Ed.), The Foucault reader (pp. 179-187). New York: Pantheon Books.
Goffman, E. ( 1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Goffman, E. ( 1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Goffman, E. ( 1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, M. H. ( 1980). Processes of mutual monitoring implicated in the production of description sequences. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 303-317.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language:Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp. Contributors: Dan Isaac Slobin - Editor, Julie Gerhardt - Editor, Amy Kyratzis - Editor, Jiansheng Guo - Editor. Publisher: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Place of publication: Mahwah, NJ. Publication year: 1996. Page number: 81.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.