{"title":"互动学术演讲中的框架","authors":"Yun Pan","doi":"10.1075/PRAG.20028.PAN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Framing involves how language users conceptualize what is happening in interaction for situated interpretation of\n roles, purposes, expectations, and sequences of action, thus show significant conceptual relevance to the analysis of routinized\n institutional communication. Having established a working definition of framing based on an intensive review of\n previous research, this study investigates university students’ and tutors’ framing behaviors in interactive small group talk. Two\n types of framing-in-interaction, -alternate framing of a single situation and co-framing\n within/beyond speaker role boundary-, are identified, examined, and characterized from a conversation-analytic perspective. The\n findings suggest that alternate framings co-occur with traceable interactional devices for sequential organization when the single\n situation at talk takes on divergent meaning potentials to be accessed. Co-framings happen when at least one (group) of\n participants is highly goal-oriented, showing conditional relevance to the prior courses of action and more explicit negotiation\n of epistemic stances. Framing, therefore, can be arguably taken as a global organization resource to characterize\n contextualization in institutional communication.","PeriodicalId":46975,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatics","volume":"153 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Framing in interactive academic talk\",\"authors\":\"Yun Pan\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/PRAG.20028.PAN\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Framing involves how language users conceptualize what is happening in interaction for situated interpretation of\\n roles, purposes, expectations, and sequences of action, thus show significant conceptual relevance to the analysis of routinized\\n institutional communication. Having established a working definition of framing based on an intensive review of\\n previous research, this study investigates university students’ and tutors’ framing behaviors in interactive small group talk. Two\\n types of framing-in-interaction, -alternate framing of a single situation and co-framing\\n within/beyond speaker role boundary-, are identified, examined, and characterized from a conversation-analytic perspective. The\\n findings suggest that alternate framings co-occur with traceable interactional devices for sequential organization when the single\\n situation at talk takes on divergent meaning potentials to be accessed. Co-framings happen when at least one (group) of\\n participants is highly goal-oriented, showing conditional relevance to the prior courses of action and more explicit negotiation\\n of epistemic stances. Framing, therefore, can be arguably taken as a global organization resource to characterize\\n contextualization in institutional communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pragmatics\",\"volume\":\"153 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pragmatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/PRAG.20028.PAN\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/PRAG.20028.PAN","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
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 framing 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, -alternate framing of a single situation and co-framing
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.