Contextualisation cues and bracketing

In describing footing, Goffman wrote “I believe linguistics provides us with the cues and markers through which such footing become manifest, helping us to find our way to a structural basis for analyzing them” (Goffman, 1981: 157). Gumperz, a contemporary of Goffman, offered an insight into how such markers as prosody, tempo, pauses, code switching and use of formulaic expressions show how interpretation and mutual understanding is achieved in participants’ talk. Gumperz himself links this work to Goffman’s work on framing. He argues that “contextualization may raise expectations about what is to come at some point beyond the immediate sequence to yield predictions about possible outcomes of an exchange, about suitable topics, and about the quality of interpersonal relations” (Gumperz, 1992: 233). In other words, identifying and understanding these cues can help us to see how participants reach a ‘shared definition of the situation’ through their talk. Schiffrin, in combining the work of both scholars, argues that this combination of perspectives provides a useful way to identify the techniques used in discourse to achieve different footings:

“The kinds of devices identified by Gumperz as contextualization cues are exactly what indicate shifts in participation statuses *...+ Thus, what Gumperz’s linguistic analyses add to Goffman’s dissection of the self are a knowledge of some of the devices that convey changes in participant status (i.e. footing) and a view of how the way an utterance is produced allows the situated inference of a new participant alignment.” (Schiffrin, 1996: 318)

Gumperz’s work focuses on how mutual understandings, and importantly misunderstandings, occur through shared cultural resources for interpretation. In a collection of essays edited by Gumperz, others who have taken a similar approach offer examples of this type of analysis in practice. Hansell and Seabrook’s (1978) study of an interview with two black teenagers provides a useful demonstration of how shifts are achieved:

“The tone is now unequivocally joking, as shown by M and G giving false information [...] without intending to be believed. The banter continues until line 30, where a sudden shift occurs. W breaks the previously established rhythmic pattern by starting in line 30 before 29 is finished; furthermore, 30 is much louder than preceding utterances, and he makes an upward shift from conversational give-and-take to a more formal ‘public address’ style similar to that used by black preachers and politicians. He signals his change of speech activity with a sharp upward pitch register shift (on the word ‘now’)

That this style shift is a significant use of a black-specific discourse strategy whose meaning is lost on the whites is clear from the different reactions to W’s ‘sermon.’ B, who has not spoken previously in this episode, utters the formulaic back channel response ‘right on’ in line 33, exactly in keeping with black audience call-response conventions *...+ The formulaic nature of B’s interjection, the appropriateness of its timing, and the fact that he chooses this point to enter the conversation all indicate that a shift has occurred to a ritualized speaking style which W and B drawing on shared cultural knowledge cooperatively produce”. (Hansell and Seabrook, 1978: 584).

This passage demonstrates the way in which inferences are drawn from detailed analysis of contextualization cues. The changes referred to in this passage mirror frame and footing shifts. They are marked by changes in pitch, volume and rhythm, and use of markers like ‘now’ that

can be identified as ‘shift-implicative’ (Beach, 1993). They also show how framing is achieved through reference to recognisable forms of discourse (e.g. the public address style of black preachers and politicians), even where those forms may not be obviously appropriate for the prima facie interactional context. Finally, this passage shows how footing is changed, including bringing new participants in to the discourse with new types of positioning available to

participants through the frame shift (e.g. B’s entry through the available footing of ‘mimicked audience’ to W’s ‘mimicked sermon’).

Several researchers have considered openings to interaction using a frame analysis. This has frequently been a focus because frame shifts are common and can highlight the manoeuvring and negotiation required in what has been described as ‘frame attunement’ (Hutchby, 1999). Rodham cites Branaman’s description: “framing involves bracketing an activity and providing

some sort of cue as to what the bracketed activity means ... events, actions, performances and selves do not always speak for themselves, but rather, depend on framing for their meaning”

(Rodham, 2000: 73).

Goodwin identifies two broad ways in which framing in interaction has been analysed: “one involves the construction of typologies or ‘grammars’ of participation categories that define the possibilities for meaningful participation in any given setting. The other [...] concentrates on detailed description of the practical accomplishment of mutually ratified participation.” (Hutchby, 1999: 48) Frame analysis itself does not provide a method for analysing data, but rather a theoretical structure within which to understand what is identified through either of the methods Goodwin suggests. Some frame analysis studies have used a detailed,

conversation analytical method, for example examining markers and cues, while others have focused more on the interaction as a whole.

“Contextualisation cues are the hidden underbelly of this meaning making. They are the signs that invoke the context that gives each utterance a specific meaning. They

channel the inferencing processes in a particular direction by calling up the frames and affecting the footing of each moment of an interaction.” (Roberts and Sarangi, 2005:

634)

“Frames are encoded and understood linguistically, paralinguistically (i.e. intonation, pitch, rhythm etc) and nonverbally. Topic is a key component in defining frames and part of the definition of an interactional situation.” (Ribeiro and de Souza Pinto, 2005:

15)

In this thesis, my method for analysing the discourse is strongly influenced by Potter’s (1996) approach, which – drawing on Potter’s own analogy of a building structure – conceives of interaction as a structure which can be best understood by taking all its components, from rafters and walls to nuts and bolts, as potentially important for assessing how the structure is successfully built. In doing so, I start with those aspects which participants in the interaction appear to treat as significant. As Wood and Kroger argue, “the most appropriate strategy is to begin with participants’ concerns, with the way that they themselves work up the issues at hand, before claiming, for example, that a piece of text demonstrates a particular discourse or facework or the operation of power” (Wood and Kroger, 2000: 25). More detailed discussion of the method of discourse analysis used here is included later in this chapter.