The interpreter-mediated interaction frame

The notions of frame and footing are ‘of particular interest for examining multiparty

talk at work’ (Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris 1995:12- 13). Additionally, they are

essential in understanding how participants can shift from serious business talk to that of play. I will therefore elaborate on both concepts, in order to illustrate how they can be used to understand the complex interaction in interpreted workplace discourse. The term frame as used by Goffman (1986: 13) is defined as an individual’s understanding of what is happening in a given situation, the ‘structure of experience

individuals have at any moment of their social lives’. A frame therefore allows

participants to define what is going on, what the situation is and what roles are being assumed by themselves and other primary participants. In any discourse event, individuals rely on their expectations that ‘particular sounds, words, objects, topics,

ways of speaking, interaction structures, roles, situations and so on’ (Rampton 1995:

17) will combine with each other in relatively predictable ways. The only way in which we can make sense of the world is to see the connections between things in the

present and ‘things we have experienced before or heard about’ (Tannen 1993a: 14). These expectations, based on experience and the assumptions drawn from experiential knowledge, enable us to understand the world in which we live and make up ‘much of

our everyday, commonsense knowledge of social reality’ (Rampton 1995: 17).

Generally, people deal with talk and action falling outside of their normal expectations with relatively little difficulty, but occasionally their basic assumptions about the social world can be substantially challenged and undermined.

Whilst the current study uses the term frame as developed by Goffman, it is valid to note that there are other terms expressing similar concepts, such as ‘schema’ and ‘scripts’. The meanings of these can differ according to the discipline of the theorist using the particular term. Tannen (1993a) discusses extensively the concepts of ‘schema’, ‘scripts’ and ‘frames’, highlighting the complexity of these terms and the ways in which they can be used (see also Metzger 1999 for an in-depth discussion on this point). However, Tannen (1993a: 16), following Ross (1975), refers generally to these concepts as ‘structures of expectations’ in an attempt to un-complicate the issue, stating that individuals will organise their knowledge of the world based on their experiences of the world in a given culture (or combination of cultures). They will then utilise this knowledge to ‘predict interpretations and relationships regarding

new information, events, and experiences’ (Tannen 1993a: 16). Tannen and Wallat

(1993: 60) provide a useful differentation between frame and schema, stating that whilst a frame is a participant’s ‘sense of what activity is being engaged in’, a schema refers to participants’ ‘patterns of knowledge’ (Tannen & Wallat 1993: 60) with regard to their expectations about the world, people or things. Accordingly, a frame relates to the interactional aspect whilst a schema refers to an individual’s knowledge structure (Takimoto & Koshiba 2009).

Frames are, as Tannen (1993a) emphasises, non-static, dynamic and interactional, based on participants’ ongoing and frequent assessments of their own role and that of others, on a turn by turn level, throughout the discourse event. Frames are not themselves linguistic but rather are ‘implied by or brought into play by the meanings

of the discourse’ (Maley 2000: 254). However, frames are often marked through

‘formal and functional elements of language’, with participants using verbal and non- verbal markers to key other primary parties into a particular frame or set of

understandings about what is taking place, as well as ‘framing social relationships

among speakers’ (Coupland & Coupland 2000: 209).

Changes in frame can be signalled through what Goffman refers to as footing shifts. Goffman’s notion of footing is related to frames because both involve the participants in a social activity. Footing is best conceptualised as a participant’s ‘alignment, or

set, or stance, or posture, or projected self’ (Goffman 1981: 128) during a particular

stretch of interaction. It describes a person’s alignment (as speaker and hearer) in relation to an utterance produced by another primary participant. Footing thus addresses ‘the reflexive and fluctuating character of frames, together with the

moment-by-moment reassessments and realignments which participants may make in moving from one frame to another’ (Drew & Heritage 1992: 8-9). Changes in

footing, indicated through the ways in which participants ‘manage the production and

reception of an utterance’, therefore imply that a participant has shifted their

alignment in relation to both themselves and other participants present (Goffman 1981: 128). Participants establish their relationships and alignments by responding to cues and adjusting their frames according to what happens within the interactive event (Napier 2007). Accordingly, change in footing is ‘another way of talking about a

change in our frame for events’ (Bargiela-Chiappini & Harris 1995:12- 13).

Systematic verbal and non-verbal ‘cues and markers’ are used by participants to signal their footing in an interactive event (Wortham 1996). These markers can occur orally through the use of a switch of language, register or pitch or can be signalled by visual/ multimodal cues such as posture, eye gaze, facial expression and ‘other

displays of attention or involvement’ (Rampton 2007b: 1). Therefore, if there is a

change of frame in interaction, signalled either linguistically or via visual multimodal cues, the participants must align themselves according to the new frame, thus resulting in a change in footing (Takimoto & Koshiba 2009).

Shifting to the play frame

The preceding discussion on the notions of frame and footing are firstly relevant to the current study in terms of the use of humour and small talk at work, as it examines how these elements are utilised within workplace CofPs, e.g. workplace teams. Shifts from serious to ‘play talk’ are heavily signalled via contextualisation cues. In

workplace teams, depending on the degree of shared experience and knowledge between participants and the extent to which deaf employees have parity with their hearing peers, there are likely to be differences in recognising and understanding those cues and the subsequent shifts in frame.

Boxer and Cortés-Conde (1997) and Coates (2007) argue that conversational or situational humour involves the establishment of a ‘play’ frame, with a backdrop of inter-group knowledge. Once this frame is established, participants collaborate in the construction of talk, with shared laughter nurturing group solidarity. These arguments draw on Bateson’s (1972) idea of a play frame, whereby participants can frame their talk as humorous by signalling their shift from serious talk to play talk. Utterances are marked as humorous through special contextualisation or framing procedures (Kotthoff 2000: 65). The creation of the play frame is fundamental, as the humour

‘not only emerges in the situation itself but from the appropriate cues that make it a laughing matter’ (Boxer & Cortés-Conde 1997: 277). Straehle (1993: 214) notes that

while contextualisation cues enable speakers to frame and interpret individual utterances as joking rather than serious, or teasing rather than hostile, these ‘smaller

frames are embedded in, and in fact, construct even larger ones’. Humorous

exchanges, such as the telling of a joke, enable participants to recall what is shared about their everyday practices, and the depth to which they share it, bringing to the surface the ‘commonality that is implicit in our social life’ (Critchley 2007: 27). Maintenance of a play frame is indicative of solidarity, as participants are collaborating in sustaining a play frame and a particular way of talking (Coates 2007). The collaboration required for the establishment of a play frame requires talk that is jointly constructed with a very strong sense of cooperation, and from the premise that the conversational floor is simultaneously open to all participants (Coates 2007, see also Edelsky 1993; Coates & Sutton-Spence 2001). Spontaneous conversational humour requires participants to draw on shared knowledge and in-group norms (Coates 2007). Engaging in joking or humorous exchanges requires a ‘sensitive

awareness of the process of interaction’ which enables the joker to quickly perceive

the microcosmic shared context and culture to which they can refer (Davies 2003: 1369). The ability to participate in joking is important in the development of rapport,

with collaborative or ‘joint’ joking demonstrating just how well participants know each other (Davies 2003).

Participants must recognise that a play frame has been invoked and then choose to maintain it (Coates 2007). Play frames can be somewhat problematic due to the fact that they are less explicitly signalled compared to other forms of humour. Joke telling, for example, involves much clearer signalling on the part of the initiator, e.g. ‘have you heard this one before’, but in play frames meaning and intention can be less clear and thus can result in misunderstandings and/ or misfires (Boxer & Cortés- Conde 1997). If play talk is occurring between friends or in an established CofP where humour and teasing is part of the norm, then the lack of explicit signalling will not present a problem for the majority of participants. However, if a participant is not a full member of a CofP, or is from a different culture, then the signals may not be recognised.

In terms of humour, footing is a further essential theoretical formulation which attempts to account for the phenomenological shift that occurs at the point where the joke is initiated (Davies 2003). Following Goffman’s (1981) definition of footing implies that the individual initiating the joke is taking a different stance toward the interaction, which other participants can then choose to take up or disregard. An individual’s utterance will be understood by another participant as, for example, either ‘joking’ or ‘arguing’ dependent on the latter’s sense of frame (Takimoto & Koshiba 2009). Any change in frame will result in a repositioning and realignment by participants to the shift, thus bringing about a change in footing (Takimoto & Koshiba 2009). Participants will therefore recognise that a frame has shifted, for example from serious business talk to that of a play frame, and will choose whether or not to adjust their footing or alignment along with this shift. A participant’s ability to ‘recognise what is happening and respond in some even rudimentary way’ is therefore very important (Davies 2003: 1368).

Humour is deeply embedded in the ‘partially submerged structure of sociocultural

knowledge in the form of schemas, associations, assumptions and presuppositions linked to discourse’ (Davies 2003: 1363). A humorous utterance establishes a frame,

must be worked out by the participant attuned to the contextualisation cues within that utterance (Davies 2003: 1364). Humour can be a very useful and powerful communication tool, but as with all forms of language, knowing when and how to use it appropriately is key. In order for participants to successfully participate in the construction of joking episodes they need to be able to grasp and then play with ‘the

principles of the joking frame’, demonstrating the finely tuned understanding they

have of each other (Davies 2003: 1381).

Studies of humour have identified a range of cues or markers which indicate a shift into ‘play mode’ (Goffman 1974). Coates (2007) describes talk in a play frame as being characterised by features such as overlapping speech, the co-construction of utterances, repetition, laughter and metaphor. These features, often co-present in a given stretch of talk, seem to be essential elements of ‘playing’ conversationally. Hymes (1972) refers to a humorous ‘key’, which can be signalled by cues such as frequent laughter and a ‘jokey tone’ (Eggins & Slade 1997: 158), as well as through the use of pathos and exaggeration (Kotthoff 2000). Contextual cues such as the speaker’s tone of voice, sudden changes in pitch or rhythm, the preceding discourse, and paralinguistic cues such as the use of a laughing or smiling voice (Coates 2007) can all signal that a play frame is being invoked and that participants have recognised the shift.

Laughter plays a particularly important role in structuring playful talk as it marks participants’ recognition of both the establishment of a play frame and its close (Coates 2007). Davies (2003: 1365) refers to the ‘sardonic tone and deadpan

delivery’ used by an interlocutor in her example of a humorous exchange. Eggins and

Slade (1997) also draw attention to kinaesthetic cues such as a participant’s change of facial expression or physical posture. Davies (2003) identifies the repetition of lexical, syntactic, prosodic and pragmatic dimensions of the discourse, as well as a rhythmic matching, as allowing for well-coordinated joint interaction. Repetition appears to be a particularly striking element of talk in a play frame, occurring at many levels: lexical, semantic, syntactic and thematic (Coates 2007). Repeating another’s choice of words, for example, can be a powerful way of signalling acknowledgement (Davies 2003), and collaboration (Rogerson-Revell 2007), enabling the talk to move from a serious frame to a play frame in a ‘very coherent and smooth way’ (Coates 2007: 43).

Full participation in engaging in joking or humorous exchanges with native language users clearly requires a high level of communicative competence together with the appropriate socio-cultural knowledge (Davies 2003). Furthermore, participants’ recognition of the signals that cue them into the play frame often hinges on their contextual background information to the event (Barsoux 1996). In interpreter- mediated interaction, the SLI’s understanding of, and participation in, the frames being invoked by participants, together with contextual knowledge in which to locate the exchange constitutes an essential element of their interpretation. As we shall see, this has implications for humorous exchanges in interpreted mediated interaction between deaf and hearing employees.

Interpreted-mediated discourse events

I would suggest that for many people, a discourse event which is mediated by an SLI is both a form of talk and action that challenges and subverts participants’ expectations of what constitutes ‘normal’ reality, confronting on a number of levels the frame that they might hold for a particular discourse event. Metzger (1999: 88) states that ‘the dynamic interplay of frames and schema can allow people to

understand (or misunderstand) interactive events’ and it is therefore useful to

examine how the primary participants in an interpreted event might frame the interaction, and how this is evidenced in their discourse. Previous accounts (Wadensjö 1992; Tate & Turner 2001; Moody 2007) have suggested that some of the conflict that can occur during interpreted interaction stem to some degree from participants’ understanding of the situation in which they are involved, the norms of interpreting, and the roles of their co-participants. For example, Angermeyer (2005), in his study of court interpreters, highlights the importance of interpreters adjusting their translational output to meet the needs of participants, such as considering alternatives to the use of first-person translational norms. Angermeyer asserts that participant misunderstandings in interpreter-mediated interaction are frequently attributed to their lack of understanding of translational norms and that the interpreter’s failure to take into account participant needs (such as identifying interlocutors and their participant roles) is rarely considered. A theoretical structure that enables the examination of participant expectations of an interpreted event can

reveal the different layers of understanding and interaction inherent in interpreted discourse, and can allow the consideration of the potentially mismatched frames and schema between hearing employees, deaf employees and SLIs.

In terms of interpreter-mediated discourse, research has demonstrated that interpreters shift their footing throughout discourse events, and for a variety of purposes. Kent and Potter (2005) expand on the issue of frame in relation to interpreters, stating that a mental frame defines the way in which an individual believes a task ‘should’ be done and include within that understanding: the order in which topics and speakers should occur, who should and should not be involved in the interaction, contributor entitlements, what topics are relevant and which are irrelevant and what kind of emotion is appropriate to the event. This elaboration in relation to the concept of frame is a useful one, as it allows us to begin to consider all of the aspects of the frame that primary parties bring to an interpreted team meeting within the workplace. The frame for an interpreted encounter is embedded within other layers of framed activity (Metzger 1999), and an interpreted team meeting will consist of a number of layered and overlapping frames, with ‘smaller’ or more local frames located within broader frames (Takimoto & Koshiba 2009). At the centre of the interaction is what Takimoto and Koshiba (2009: 18) refer to the ‘interpreter-mediated interaction

frame’. Depending on the experience of the primary parties they will all have varying

expectations of what an interpreted meeting entails. Participants will therefore expect the meeting to have certain characteristics and will behave according to their expectations. Takimoto and Koshiba give interpreter-generated interruptions (e.g. for clarification or explanation of a word or concept) as one example of a characteristic of an interpreter-mediated meeting, whilst the interpreter’s position within turn-taking is given as another. They note that the number of participants increases the complexity of the overall interaction, which in turn presents the interpreter with difficulties interpreting all utterances accurately. As a consequence, the interpreter may have to manage the information by selecting what they consider requires to be interpreted. Their study demonstrates that participants can shift frames in order to respond to a lack of rendition from the interpreter, producing a new utterance of which the interpreter can provide a rendition, thus bringing the interpreter back into the ‘default frame’ of interpreter-mediated interaction.

The interpreter-mediated frame will be located within the frame of the team meeting, which is in turn sited in the wider frame of the particular organisation (e.g. social services, education department etc). All of these frames will have certain characteristics associated with them and participants’ expectations and understanding of how these frames operate will be formed according to their past experiences. For example, if participants regularly attend team meetings where humorous exchanges form an integral part of the interaction between managers and subordinates, then they will be accustomed to adjusting their footing as the frames shift between serious and non-serious talk (such as teasing). The vital aspect here is that as these shifts in footing occur, be they between levels of formality or business-orientated and social talk, interpreters ‘must also shift their footing in relation to everyone present’ (Kent & Potter 2005: 56).