Goffman's frame

As mentioned in Section 2.2, Goffman (1974: 8) sees the frame as a means by which we interpret what is happening around us. This is particularly important in the language classroom environment where what is going on could be either ‘simulated’ or ‘real’, although the division between the two is not always as neat as it first appears. Goffman's concept of the frame comes from Gregory Bateson’s (1972) study of the play behaviour of animals which shows that play is patterned on 'serious' activities such as hunting. In order to play, animals need to signal that they are not, in fact, engaging in the activities that their play mimics, otherwise the consequences could be serious for them or their fellow participants. The frame then is interactional and 'local' in nature. It is operative when the participants 'agree' that it is so: if

119

one participant does not 'play the game', there is no play. The data gathered in this research shows that, like other animals, human beings play even during the serious business of language learning. Before investigating how they do this, it is worth exploring the nature of the language classroom and the potential for play that such an environment affords.

4.2.1 Frames in the adult language learning classroom

It is hardly surprising that many experts in the field of SLA see the role-play as an important teaching tool, from Vygotsky’s disciples such as Lantolf (e.g. 1997; 2000) to the advocates of task-based learning (e.g. Long and

Crookes, 1992; Skehan, 1998). As already noted (Chapter 3), the staff of BizLang, whose training rooms form the setting for the present research, regard role-play as central to the organisation's pedagogical approach: ‘the best way to learn is to do’ is as near as it comes to a mantra. The context for the present study therefore provides the learners with many play-as-

rehearsal scenarios.

In Goffman’s terms, a role-play set up in the language classroom, whether a full-blooded negotiation or a fleetingly created hypothetical situation, is a 'keyed' activity (Goffman, 1974: 40-82), that is, the actions that typically refer to one activity are actually referring to another. As young mammals’ play is already meaningful in terms of a primary framework such as fighting (Section 2.2), so the language learning opportunity is also recognisable as something else (the negotiation of a contract, for instance). Goffman categorises such role-plays as ‘a kind of utilitarian make-believe’ (1974: 59). In such a

120

(Goffman, 1974: 82) where the outer frame is the English lesson and the inner layer is the simulated exchange or exchanges (Appel, 2007: 282). Of course, depending on which of these frames the participants understand themselves to be in at any one moment, the roles that they take up with each other will vary. For instance, the teacher – learner relationship will operate at the outer layer (what Goffman calls the 'rim') of the classroom context while, for example, that of customer – supplier will pertain in the inner layer of the simulation. It could be argued that there is a framework even beyond that of the teacher-learner in the BizLang language class: that of the client as embodied by the learner, and the provider as represented by the teacher (or 'trainer').26 It is clear that the dynamic between participants is different in each frame. Goffman uses the term 'footing' to help explain this, something he describes as:

the alignment we take up to ourselves and others present as

expressed in the way we manage the production and reception of an utterance. A change in our footing is another way of talking about a change in our frame of events’ (Goffman, 1981: 128)

The notion of footing then carries within it the potential for the speaker to shift and blend frames for their own social and communicative ends.

26

I say 'embodied by the learner' as usually the learner's company rather than the individual learner pays for the course. Occasionally, there are individuals who pay for their own course although none of the participants in the research cohort fall into this category.

121

4.2.2 The challenges that classroom frameworks present to

learners

In the classroom, it is teachers who have the responsibility for setting up play-as-rehearsal frames. However, attempting to create a play-as-fun frame is another matter as it represents an unofficial stepping out of the norm. When animals play, they usually signal the play frame by various means; for example, a dog will wag its tail, a cat will withdraw its claws. In contrast, humans often use conversational cues such as exaggerated prosody,

formulaic expressions and lexical and syntactic choices associated with such frames (Gumperz, 1982: 131). Such signals are not easy for language

learners to master, especially those with a low proficiency level, and any attempt to shift to a play-as-fun frame is, therefore, open to

misunderstanding, not only because of potentially faulty signalling, but also because of potentially faulty reception of such signals. Of course, the

difficulties lie, in part, with potential cultural differences in how such signals are given and interpreted.

With regard to the play-as-rehearsal frame, although it might be said that part of its usefulness lies in the fact that it does not carry long-term consequences (the frolicking puppy will not be eaten, the contract will not be lost), it does have its own particular pitfalls for the language learner. As Appel (2007) points out, participating in a role-play puts the act of speaking on display, not only to the teacher but also to fellow learners. This means that it carries the potential for ‘real’ social consequences in terms of the relationships within the room: a humiliation in role may still be a humiliation. Furthermore, it could

122

be felt all the more acutely for those who, in their business lives, feel in

control, but suddenly find themselves, in their own eyes at least, in the role of less-than-competent pupil. Thus, the danger of the 'reduced personality' (see the discussion in Section 2.7) is an ever-present one.

Yet despite the potential minefield of the role-play, especially in terms of exploiting it for fun, the data to follow illustrates how learners often decide to navigate its dangers in order to generate humour and to meet their own social objectives.