Frames and interaction on the air
Keywords:radio phone-in, discourse, frames, institutional talk, linguistic (im)politeness
Drawing on frames theory as an analytical framework, this study examines discourse interaction of a radio phone-in programme in Shanghai, during which professionals specialised in psychology or a related field provide advice to audience callers by answering questions and addressing concerns on the phone. It aims to describe and analyse what frames are constructed, and how these frames are linguistically and discursively accomplished at a local level in institutional settings. Identifying three major frames (Host, Professional, and Community), the author demonstrates how participants create, shift, and blend frames in response to the contingency of the local discursive and interactional context. This study also underlines the benefits of incorporating multiple perspectives in examination of discursive interaction.
Brewer, M B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘We’? Levels of collective identity and self-presentations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language use: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness (pp. 56–311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bucker, J. (2013). Position offerings in German radio phone-in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 45(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.007
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fitzgerald, R., & Housley, W. (2002). Identity, categorization and sequential organization: The sequential and categorial flow of identity in a radio phone-in. Discourse & Society, 13(5), 579–602. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42888521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013005275
Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1955.11023008
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Harper and Row.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gordon, C. (2015). Framing and positioning. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton and D. Shiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 324–345). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch15
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O
He, M., & Zhang, S. (2017). Re-conceptualizing the Chinese concept of face from a face-sensitive perspective: A case study of a modern Chinese TV drama. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(9), 2360–2372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.03.004
Hu, C. H. (1944). The Chinese concept of ‘face’. American Anthropologist, 46(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1944.46.1.02a00040
Hutchby, I. (1995). Aspects of recipient design in expert advice-giving on call-in radio. Discourse Processes, 19(2), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544915
Hutchby, I. (1999). Frame attunement and footing in the organization of talk radio openings. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 3(1), 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00062
Kádár, D. Z., & Haugh, M. (2013). Understanding politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139382717
Kádár, D. Z., & Pan, Y. (2012). Chinese ‘face’ and im/politeness: An introduction. Journal of Politeness Research, 8(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/PR-2012-0001
Mao, L. R. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘Face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics, 21(5), 451–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90025-6
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(4), 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3
Nwoye, G. O. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(4), 309–328.
O’Malley, M. (2009). Falling between frames: Institutional discourse and disability in radio. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(2), 346–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.07.008
Simon, B. (2004). Identity in modern society: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773437
Spencey-Oatey, H. (2007). Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(4), 639–656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.12.004
Sun, H. (2008). Participant roles and discursive actions: Chinese transactional telephone interaction. In H. Sun, & D. Z. Kádár (Eds.), It’s the dragon’s turn: Chinese institutional discourses (pp. 77–126). Bern: Peter Lang.
Tanaka, L. (2015). Advice in Japanese radio phone-in counselling. Pragmatics, 25(2), 251–285. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.25.2.06tan
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1993). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Framing in discourse (pp. 57–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thornborrow, J. (2001). Questions, control and the organization of talk in calls to a radio phone-in. Discourse Studies, 3(1), 119–143. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24047556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445601003001006
Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power talk: Language and interaction in institutional discourse. London: Longman.
Yu, G., & Wu, Y. (2015). Managing awkward, sensitive, or delicate topics in (Chinese) radio medical consultations. Discourse Processes, 52(3), 201–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2014.954952
Zhang, W. (2005). Code-choice in bidialectal interaction: The choice between Putonghua and Cantonese in a radio phone-in program in Shenzhen. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(3), 355–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.007
How to Cite
© Equinox Publishing Ltd.
For information regarding our Open Access policy, click here.