You are on page 1of 17

UNIVERSIT DE LAUSANNE

FACULT DES LETTRES

FRAMING A FAMILY ANNOUNCEMENT

English Linguistics Section Danile Klapproth Muazzin

Paper by Garance Dupuis 26.12.2012

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

Framing a family announcement


1. Introduction The empirical data I will analyse is not natural conversation but scripted interaction. In the current case study natural conversation means the spontaneous speech that is usually encountered in conversational analysis and scripted means staged and rehearsed dialogues played by actors. Although the data do not belong to natural conversation, it is close to it in the sense that it draws from natural conversation and that what is going on in the situation does not involve magic or science fiction. Therefore, I consider this data as having two level of analysis. On the first level, the frame established by the situation corresponds to a realistic representation of family interaction, whereas the scenario adds to this very realistic frame of family interaction a second level of what could be considered enhanced stereotypical and caricaturized features. Therefore, I distinguish two levels (i.e. frames) in the current data, whose superposition is made obvious by the recurrence of interpretative mistakes in the natural interaction. Those framing mistakes rely on stereotypical features of characters, which are exploited and augmented by the scenario writers in order to achieve comical effect. I will conduct my research by trying to answer the following string of questions: How does Mitchell participate in the misunderstanding of the frame he is trying to establish with his family relatives? What are the opportunities these relatives fail to catch to align with Mitchell and why do they fail to catch those opportunities? To what extent are the new footings created by Jay and Claire to deal with the topic Mitchell as a dad generated by their own positionings, i.e. Jay was raised in the perspective of becoming a tough male in a period when there were no gay fathers and Claire is a mother of three? How do these new frameworks relate to Mitchells alignement? Eventually, what role do frames play in the achievement of comical effect in the analysed data? 2. Previous works on framing in family interaction

2.1. Footing, interactive frames and knowledge schemas To begin with, Tannen and Wallat (1993) make a useful distinction between interactive frames and knowledge schemas, also known as interpretive frames. Bateson (1972) introduced the term frame to deal with the indirect meaning of a message and then Goffman (1974) built on it in his posterior work. The frames encompass two subtypes, which are the interactive frames and the knowledge schemas. The interactive frames refer to the understanding of what is going on in interaction (Tannen and Wallat 1993: 59) or the metamessage (Bateson 1972) that conveys the meaning of the interaction to all its participants. Since metamessages are conveyed by contextualization cues that are constituted of both linguistic and paralinguistic features, it is important to keep in mind, especially regarding Davis and Harrs (1990) assumptions about Goffmans frames, that frames emerge in and are constituted by verbal and nonverbal interaction (Tannen and Wallat 1993: 60), i.e. frames are interactive.

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

Gumperz (1992) analyses how contextualization cues help make inferences in a conversation with regard to a misunderstanding between a native speaker of English and a non-native yet fluent speaker of English. Contextualization refers to speakers and listeners use of verbal and nonverbal signs to relate what is said at any one time and in any one place to knowledge acquired through past experience, in order to retrieve the presuppositions [i.e. the inferences] they must rely on to maintain conversational involvement and assess what is intended (Gumperz 1992: 230). Although context is also a relevant factor in Tannen and Wallats (1993) case study, Gumperzs choice of conversation provides an excellent example of how an obviously dissimilar knowledge of contextualization, i.e. knowledge schemas nurtured in different cultural backgrounds, lead to different understandings of what is going on in the conversation. Those cues operate primarily at [] levels of speech production and are prosodic cues, paralinguistic signs, code choice and choice of lexical forms or formulaic expressions (231). Finally, in the case study, interactants have trouble creating a coherent frame because they share different cultural backgrounds, but misunderstandings can also happen among speakers of the same language although they may repair it more quickly. A negotiation of frame can lead to a change in the way a speaker addresses other hearers. For these occasions, Goffman (1981) introduces the new concept of footing that describes a change in the alignement we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance (Goffman 1981: 128 as quoted in Tannen and Wallat 1993: 57-58). The footing also refers to frame shifting when a certain frame is inadequate for a conversational situation, but a footing in conversation cannot entail knowledge schemas shifts because knowledge schemas are deeply rooted cognitive structures that only modify over long periods of time. Tannen and Wallat (1993) build their data analysis on these notions to display the footings occurring in a medical interaction in which a doctor is in close contact not only with his child patient but also with the patients mother. As the doctor is compared to a juggler who has to step in and out of three different participation frameworks sequentially, the authors accentuate that the doctor negotiates the alternate footings by putting the participants who are momentarily neglected on hold, i.e. to keep them waiting until he is ready to talk to them again. The keeping on hold of interactants who are unaddressed is difficult because it means keeping them interested in the game while they are sitting on the bench. The change in the participation framework of the interaction, a notion used to a greater extent by Kendall (2006) in her article, triggers the doctor to align, i.e. to negotiate the interpersonal relationship according to whom he is speaking, differently with his successive interlocutors, whether it be his child patient, the patients mother or medical students. In her study of dinnertime homecomings, Kendall (2007) uses another set of tools instituted by Goffman (1981), namely the participation framework that means the relation of all members of a social gathering to [an] utterance (Kendall 2007: 415). Goffman thus stretches the notion of speaker to the production format of principle, animator and author to distinguish the speaker as social person from the one who simply animates a text of which he is or is not the author. He also goes past the notion of hearer by pointing out ratified participants, either addressed or unaddressed, and

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

bystanders or non-ratified participants. The interesting point Kendall makes in her case study resides in using the term footing to encompass changes in the participation framework, the register and the function of talk which also shows all the dimensions of the above mentioned notion of alignement. 2.2 Towards the construction of social and gendered identities By analysing all the components of child-centered footing and couple-centered footing (Kendall 2006: 424) within the interactional sociable frame, Kendall also moves towards the idea of footing as a way to adopt a certain position not only in the interactive frame but also in the larger frame of society and gender. While detailing all the cues that participate in establishing a child-centered footing, i.e. a footing in which mother and father are considered as parents and communicate from the childs point of view, she also notices the presence of a couple-centered footing whose characteristics is to evoke [the] non-parental social relations, e.g. married couple, lovers (424). This allows us to envisage the possibility of constructing an identity that hints at something going further that the interactional frame of, for instance, socialization, whose importance is mainly ritual and its function phatic. I thus propose to say that identity transcends the interaction in which it happens and nests in the simplest everyday rituals. Davies and Harr (1990) pick up the issue of identity construction and negotiation within frames by opposing their theory of positioning to role theory, which they argue Goffmans (1974) frames belong to because they are, like roles, already given in a cultural system, and the occasions of their use, either in this key or that, provided for socially (Davies and Harr 1990: 15). They recycle the philosophical notions of immanence and transcendence to illustrate their view they call it immanentist view of positioning as the discursive process whereby selves are located in conversations as observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced story lines (Davies and Harr 1990: 7). The story lines are an important part of Davies and Harrs theory as they assume that conversations interweave two kinds of organisations: one related to the topic and the other to the story lines or the autobiographical aspects of a conversation (Davies and Harr 1990: 8). They subsequently extract two types of positioning: interactive and reflexive that help refine the notion in terms of interpersonal relations. By that, they mean that positions, that can be taken up or resisted, are made available in the story line for the speaker as well as the others participants of the interaction. Finally they illustrate their theory by analysing two cases in which interactive and reflexive positionings occur. The first case study explores how by claiming responsibility of dealing with a situation or taking charge in a situation one individual robs the other person of agency. In their study of a conversation situation, the authors demonstrate how an utterance can be perceived differently depending on the moral order the two interactants rely on. In the context of a mans claim to feel responsible for a woman who is sick, the moral order that the man relies on is the nurse-patient narrative whereas in the case of the woman it is the paternalistic male behaviour narrative (21). The beliefs we carry about ourselves and the others are determining how we will understand a language production. Shari Kendall (2007) uses the previously described notion of positioning in the case

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

study of family talk and focuses on how women exploit positioning to create gendered identities of mother and father. By examining contemporary models of gendered Discourses, a certain social discourse, she first exposes how the ideology of the traditional housewife has been abandoned in the discourse, or the language in use, of contemporary women in favour of a more egalitarian Discourse of role sharing thus resulting in an ideology of intense mothering (Kendall 2007: 134). In her discourse analysis of dual-income families she underlines the inherent contradictions of this new ideology by exemplifying gendered asymmetries when mothers discuss the identity of the familys breadwinner, i.e. mothers keep positioning fathers as breadwinners while they consider themselves workers. Most interestingly, she concentrates her analysis on moments during which couples are experiencing conflicts related to familial organisation to bring out this asymmetries more blatantly. While the surface discourse is one of egalitarian role sharing when family roles are discussed with non-family members (e.g. a financial advisor, a friend), the actual Discourse that shows through language use inside the family maintains the fathers role as breadwinner whereas the mother is only seen as a worker whose job is accessory. Similarly, the father does not share an equal role of primary caregiver with the mother but is only perceived as a secondary caregiver whose cares are often imperfect and clumsy. Finally, she calls the indirect construction of self through language and behaviour indexing (Hanks 1992, 2000 as quoted in Kendall 2007: 127). However, Ochs and Taylor (1995) take an opposite way to link gender and family by reversing Kendalls (2007) logic. Kendall (2007) exposes how gender affects family positioning, more specifically the positioning of mothers, while Ochs and Taylor (1995) link gendered identity construction with family even more tightly as they claim that family exchanges do not simply exemplify gender relations otherwise shaped by forces outside the family but, rather, are the primordial means for negotiating, maintaining, transforming, and socializing gendered identities (Ochs and Taylor 1995: 100). Gendered identities would therefore be primarily negotiated inside the family and would only then reflect in social interactions. This theory adds considerable weight to family exchanges and also reduces the investigation for possible gender influences. Ochs and Taylors analysis focuses particularly on narrative activity within family exchanges because it offers a multiparty communicative situation that differs from typical gender case studies that focus on one-to-one exchanges. Most interestingly they argue that multiparty exchanges favour the existence of a less obvious hierarchy than dyadic exchanges (Ochs and Taylor 1995: 101), and reinforce the mothers collaboration to a Father Knows Best dynamic. To the purpose of their analysis, they define narrative roles, i.e. protagonist, introducer, primary recipient, problematizer and problematizee (102), and observe the distribution of each role and the way the role was assigned. Beyond noting asymmetric distributions, they pick up the stakes hiding behind each role. For instance, the protagonist role may come as very flattering and empowering whereas, as far as it goes in familial exchange, it overall means being exposed to the scrutiny (103) of others, especially the primary recipient, who is not only a ratified participant but mostly judges the protagonists actions. Therefore, it is no surprise that the primary recipient is most of the time the problematizer, i.e. the person who renders an action or another person problematic, and the protagonist the problematizee. Regarding the assumption that men are more eager to problematize than other family members, Ochs and Taylor also suggest that it is through mothers instantiation as

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

introducer that fathers gain easier access to the primary problematizer function, while mothers settle for counterproblematizing (113) in order to defend themselves of their children. 2.3 Indexing imaginary characters Hoyle (1993) focuses on footings in play frames, which are frames in which the participants of the interaction agree that they are playing. She uses Goffmans (1974) notion of embedded frames and analyses how two boys embed the sportscasting activity into a spontaneous play frame in the first case and an elicited play frame in the second case (Hoyle 1993: 116). What is especially interesting in her study is that she underlines how the boys abandon the frame of their real identity, i.e. the literal frame, very spontaneously and how they favour the sportscasting play frame to communicate even about their literal activity, e.g. table tennis playing. Eventually, the boys only use the literal frame to serve the purpose of the sportscasting footing, e.g. to solve disputes about what can be done in the play or who has the highest score, which can be explained by the fact that the sportscasting footing is activity-tied (Ervin-Tripp 1977: 165 as quoted in Hoyle 1993: 117). By establishing the existence of a sportscasting framework, composed of a sportscasting register, as well as an expressive intonation and distinctive footing (118), in the boys speech, she notes they index their knowledge, though unconscious, of a specific register that includes nonstandard grammatical features. 3. 3.1 Material and methodology Presentation and contextualization of the data This paper presents the analysis of a 2'30'' extract from the pilot episode of a mockumentary sitcom entitled Modern Family. During the extract, eleven characters are gathered in the living room of Mitchell and Camerons house. Although eleven characters appear in the scene, three of them (Luke, Manny, Lily) do not speak after the greetings. Moreover, two characters (Cameron and Lily) are not in the room when the recording begins. The characters that are present during the scene I recorded are: Jay Pritchett (J) Gloria Pritchett (G) man about sixty years old, Claire and Mitchells father Colombian woman between thirty-five and fourty years old with a heavy South American accent, Jays second wife Claire Dunphy (Cl) woman about fourty, Jays daughter Phil Dunphy (P) man about fourty, Claires husband Mitchell Pritchett (Mi) man between thirty-five and fourty, Jays son Cameron Tucker (Ca) man between thirty-five and fourty, Mitchs partner Haley Dunphy (H) teenager about sixteen years old, Claire and Phils older daughter Alex Dunphy (A) teenager about thirteen years old, Claire and Phils younger daughter Luke Dunphy (Lu) boy about ten years old, Claire and Phils son Manny Delgado (Ma) boy about ten years old, Glorias son and Jays stepson Lily (Li) baby about six months old, Mitch and Camerons Vietnamese 6 months old adopted daughter

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

The extract takes place right after Mitchell and Cameron brought back their newly adopted girl from Vietnam. Mitchell and Cameron are a homosexual couple and everybody in their family is aware of that. Just before the extract begins, Cameron confesses to Mitchell that he has set up a gathering of his family without Mitchell knowing it so that he would tell to his family the news of Lilys adoption. Camerons also tells Mitchell that he acted this way because Mitchell is an avoider who will always try to hide from his family things that are related to his homosexuality that might upset his father. With regard to the expectations raised by the sitcom until the moment of the extract, the scene of the episode when Claire opens Mitchells door is unexpected in two different ways. From Mitchells point of view, his familys visit is unexpected and Cameron has led him to a point where he has his back up against the wall without being able to find an excuse. Meanwhile, from the point of view of the audience, the appearance of Jay and Claire as Mitchells father and sister is also unexpected because it has not yet realised that all the characters of the sitcom are a family and has only viewed their stories separately so far. It is appropriate to say that when Claire enters Mitchell and Camerons house the audiences assumptions about the show radically change. Since the extract is a recording of a scripted conversation, i.e. a conversation elicited from a television series, the corpus does not belong to natural conversation and cannot be studied as such. However, there is no place for a qualitative comparison between natural and scripted conversation in this case because I chose to study scripted conversation for itself. Instead of being belittled by the comparison with natural conversation, the empirical data I chose to study offers other specificities one would not find in natural interaction. Therefore I propose to think of scripted conversation as a kind of conversation adjacent to natural interaction and presenting with similar and dissimilar features. 3.2 Methodology In order to write this paper I had to find a subject. My first inspiration came from Shari Kendalls (2006) article entitled Honey, Im home!: Framing in family dinner homecomings, but I did not know where or how to find natural data to analyse because I was not acquainted with any English speaking family. My linguistic professor Danile Klapproth then gave me the idea of analysing scripted conversation. In order to retrieve the data, I first selected an interaction between family members from a sitcom I watch regularly, which is called Modern Family. The episode was in avi format, and in order to separate the part I was interested in from the rest of the episode which lasts a total of 30 minutes, I used the computer application D-Vision 4. Afterwards, I turned the excerpt into an mp3 file via an internet site called www.zamzar.com. Finally, I employed the application Express Scribe to transcript the data. In my analysis of the transcript, I will adopt the strategy of examining the footing(s) Mitchell adopts towards his family and the footing(s) his family members at least the ones who are interacting actively with him adopts towards Mitchell. I will first consider how Mitchell frames the announcement he has to do to his family by detailing his footing and the expectations prompted by his framing. Meanwhile, I will

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

also detail the footing adopted by his hearers when they also become speakers. In other words, I will show how different footings coexist in the same frame and how the family members either embrace or resist the footing installed by the others. The analysis will be conducted with the help of the following notions: Frame as defined by Tannen and Wallat (1993) like an individuals understanding of what is going on in interaction (59) which links frames to the ongoing speech activity. This implies that all the interactants must have the same definition of the current speech activity in order to share the frame. Frames are inferred from verbal and nonverbal cues and markers and surround the message by way of conveying a metamessage. However, it happens that the same cues can be interpreted in different ways, or frame participants can pick up different cues, which is the case in Mitchell and his father Jays interaction. Participation framework as defined by Kendall like the relation of all members of a social gathering to an utterance (2006: 415). Alignement meaning the linguistic behaviour that is interlocutor-dependent. In the current case study, I will show how Mitchell adopts a superdiplomatic position to talk to his relatives, and how his initial alignement is modified throughout the interaction. Footing as described by Goffman (1981) like a change in the alignement (128 as quoted by Tannen and Wallat 1993: 57-58). In other words, footings are changes in the stance one adopts towards (a) someone he/she is speaking with or (b) an utterance. With regard to (a), footings typically occur when the participation framework change, e.g. when there is a change in the addressed recipients. Footings are encapsulated in frames of the same speech-activity, as I have explained with regard to Hoyles (1993) article. Discourses with a capital D as the social practices displayed through language, i.e. patterns and stereotypes that we believe are relevant with regard to the way social roles should be performed. Indexing meaning how one shows indirectly that he/she is aware of a certain Discourse. Indexing works on the level of language in use but relate to Discourses. Positioning meaning how one sees oneself in a pre-established Discourse. In the current case study, positioning relates to the right to fatherhood that Mitchell assumes he has as a homosexual man.

4. 4.1

Presentation and discussion of findings Presentation of findings I will first separate the extracts in two parts corresponding to two different frames. The first frame corresponds to an opening sequence, i.e. greetings exchanged at the beginning of a gathering. This part runs from line 1 to line 21 and I have decided to call it the socialization frame after Kendall (2006). The persons who take part to the socialization frame are Mitchell, Alex, Phil, Claire, Jay and Gloria. Luke, Haley and Manny also take part, but they do not stand out by saying something noticeable, which is why I did not transcribe their opening greetings. On line 2, Mitchell welcomes his guests by saying:

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Mi A P M Cl J M J P Cl P G P Cl P

oh\ (5) (exhales loudly) (1.2) ((M opens door)) HEY:::\=HA=HA:=how are you\ hi: [guys [hey:\ heya\ ((offering Mitchell a bottle of wine)) [for you/ [oh thank you\ oh dont thank us=open=it dad is coming RIGHT beHIND ((bell rings)) toc=toc were he::re\ coming in\ dont worry dad\ nothing gay going on here\ (.) may I take your multicoloured coat and bejewelled cap/ ya\ (..) hey\ hey jay\ (giggles) gloria\ hi::\ how are you how [you doing\ [hi Gloria <(giggles)> how are you\</(giggles)> oh whatta BEAUTIful dress\ hi=thank you phi:l\ (laughs) o:k\ ((he touches Glorias hips pretending to feel the material of the dress)) NO\ ((slaps Phils hand)) hey\ phil\ (giggles) she says phil NOt fee:l (.) phil\ ha:\

4.1.1 Footings inside the socialization frame The socialization frame carries mainly a phatic function, i.e. establishing a connection between the participants of the extract, yet some hints of the alignement characters will adopt in the second part of the extract are already observable. On line 6, Claire says to Mitchell oh dont thank us=open=it dad is coming RIGHT beHIND which means that she aligns herself towards (a) her father who is absent as someone who thinks that he is a difficult man and that her brother needs to drink to bear his presence, and (b) her brother as someone who displays solidarity by bringing him alcohol to bear their fathers presence. Moreover, she reframes Phils present from politeness to desperate measure. As we see on line 5, Mitchell inferred from Phils gesture that the bottle was a thank you gift for the invitation, but his oh thank you\ is recycled by Claire to reframe the intention behind the gesture itself. By that, she shows to her brother that she knows their father is not supportive of his homosexuality and likely to make inappropriate remarks about it thus the bottle of wine is reframed as a marker of sisterly solidarity and support. Claire also positions Mitchell as the only addressed recipient by referring to her father as dad which subsequently excludes the other members of the family who are downgraded to the status of unaddressed recipients. They accept this change in the participation framework and the footing by not making any further comments. Mitchell subsequently adopts the same ironic footing when he bids his father welcome on line 9. He spontaneously says to his father that he can enter the house safely because theres nothing gay going on here, thus positioning his father as someone who has issues and is uncomfortable in the presence when his son exposes his homosexuality. His father also accepts the footing as he does not answer his sons invitation but only responds the second utterance regarding his clothes. 4.1.2 The news announcement frame In the second part of the extract, from lines 22 to 23, another frame is briefly elicited. 9

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

This new frame signals the end of the socialization frame. I decided to call it the narration frame because it is Jay who elicits it by asking Mitchell about his trip to Vietnam on line 22:
22 23 J Mi so how was your trip\ it=was=good\ it=was=good=actually\ but e:r about that I

However, Mitchell immediately shifts the narration frame to a news announcement frame, from but on line 23:
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 Mi it=was=good\ it=was=good=actually\ but e:r about that I (0.6) I have something that I need to tell you guys\=er\ (1) we didnt just go to vietna:m\=e:r=for pleasure=we=e::r (1.1) KINDA have some big news\ OH\ GOD\ if cam comes outta here with boobs Im leavin dad/ i hope hed emBArrass you mum\ oh\ dont mind her\ hailey had her first boy over today and (inhales) (0.4) phil=shot=him\ (exhales) (2.5) anyway\=e:r so about=about a year ago\ cam and i started to feel this longing\ you know for something more like a (0.5) maybe a baby\ woo::=thats a bad idea\ what=do mean\ bad idea\ what\ KIDS need a MOther\ (0.5) i mean if you two guys are bored=get a do:g\ ok\=were not BO:RED\ DA:D\ i support you mitchell\ even though youre not my son\ i=i=i=i think what dad is trying to say is tha:t\ mitchell\ youre a little uptight\ kids bring chaos and=and you dont handle it well\ o::h thats not what dads saying=its what YOUre saying and its insulting in a whole different way\ o:k\ people\ lets a:ll chillax\ HEY\ (0.6) wheres uncle cameron\ finally\ THANK YOU\ THANK YOU\ someone whos not insulting me notices hes not here\ o::h\ so thats the big announcement\=huh/ you two broke up\=we=well a baby wasnt gonna help that aNYway and you dont=let me tell you youre better off because\ he was a bit of a drama queen\ no=no=no=stop\=stop\no:\=(giggles) youre coming to my house and you insult me and my boyfriend who (0.5) by the way is not\ THAT\ dramatic\ and=<music>oh=my=god\ ((Intro theme from The Lion King starts playing as Cameron is solemnly approaching from behind Mitchell carrying a baby in his arms. Suddenly he raises the baby above his head with both hands in a theatrical stance. When he reaches the threshold of the living room a spotlight illuminates an Asian baby who is wearing a pink dress. Cameron looks very proud and smiles at Mitchells family who are facing him while Mitchell seems embarrassed and looks towards the floor.)) we adopted a baby\=(giggles) (inhales briskly as in surprise) her name is lily\ [OH] [OH] exCIting

J Cl H Cl Mi J Mi J Mi G Cl Mi P A Mi J

Mi

Mi Cl Mi Cl P Ca

10

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne 73 74 75 76 Mi Ca Mi Ca just turn it off\ i CANT turn it off\ its who i am\ the MUsic\ oh\=yes\=the music\</music>

Garance Dupuis

I will start by proposing to consider the news announcement frame he puts in place by saying that I have something that I need to tell you guys\ is not a simple footing but a new kind of speech activity that replaces the expected holiday narrative. However, the announcement Mitchell is trying to make to his relatives sometimes takes the shape of narration, e.g. on lines 33 to 35. I will examine how Mitchell, Jay and Claire deal with the news announcement frame and what are the footings they engage in to respond to his frame. Then I will examine how Mitchell reacts to their footings and what are the footings he to his turn adopts. From lines 23 to 26, Mitchell repeats twice his intention to tell something important to his relatives. By doing that, he requests the attention and silence of all of his family members, as well as he creates expectations on the side of his recipients. His family relatives understand that he is trying to communicate with them about something personal, but they misunderstand what this intimate thing is about. Jay is the first to react to Mitchells news announcement frame on line 27. At this point we observe that a new participation framework has been set in which Mitchell and Jay speak together while the other family members are put on hold. Indeed, from lines 23 to 46, Mitchell only reacts to Jay and then Claires intervention and lets Haley and Glorias utterances on lines 29 and 41 go unanswered. In Jays utterance on line 27, he shows that he has understood that Mitchell and Cameron did not really say why they went to Vietnam and he reframes the purpose of the travel from pleasure to sex reassignement surgery. In doing so, he confuses Vietnam for Thailand and positions Cameron like a man who is not satisfied with his natural sex because of his attraction to same-sex persons. He also positions Mitchell as a man who is not attracted to women but could possibly be attracted by men who went under sex reassignement surgery. Moreover, he indexes his knowledge of manhood by referring to breasts as boobs which resonates with tones of misogyny. Mitchell does not react to what sounds like a provocation but Claire does and she keeps the same footing as she did on line 6. She displays her disapproval of his stance and her solidarity with Mitchell by aligning herself threateningly with her fathers utterance. She thus remains in the protective footing. On lines 29 to 31, Haley aligns herself with Jays utterance in order to include her personal experience of that day. Her footing leaves all the other family members voiceless because it is only addressed to her mother as a reproach. Therefore, she abandons her aggressive footing after her mother refuses to participate in her framework which she does by explaining the situation to Mitchell and Jays family. On line 33, Mitchell resumes his activity by lateralizing Haleys intervention. He aligns himself differently to what he has to say because he chooses to explain the reason why he went to Vietnam still without saying it. He positions himself as a homosexual man who wants to have a baby but his relatives do not manage to relate this to his travel. Although Jays utterance on line 27 is related to the purpose of Mitchells travel to Vietnam, he forgets this point when he reacts to Mitchells utterance on line 35. The reason why Jay does not relate that to the travel is because

11

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

Mitchell does not refer to it like a certainty. Thus Jay treats the possibility of Mitchell and Camerons adopting a child like a bad idea. We see on lines 38 to 39 that Jay participates in the footing Claire has established in the greetings frame. He positions himself in patriarchy by saying that childrens education is mothers business and that fathers only consider children as distractions but are not apt to raise them on their own because they are too busy ruling their family. He thus reframes Mitchells mention of a longing on line 34 as boredom. On line 42, Claire intervenes and changes her footing towards Mitchell. She is no longer in the protective footing but in the mother-centered footing in which she positions herself primarily as a mother and not as Mitchells sister. In this footing, her positioning is closer to Jays because she indirectly shows that she thinks mothers are better suited for childrens education although she uses a different vehicle to carry her message. Instead of saying that children are mothers business, she criticises Mitchells temper and positions him not as man among other men but as an individual whose defects would make him unable to be a dad. In other words, she reframes the position her fathers utterances from lines 38 and 39 made explicit as something personal, which does not remain unnoticed by Mitchell. He apprehends their interactive positionings as insults and resists them. As an attempt to reframe what she maybe perceives as an argument footing, Alex tries to break the ongoing participation framework by asking for some news about Mitchells partner Cameron. On line 49, Mitchell shows that he accepts her proposal and displays his interest in discussing Mitchells presence because he knows that this footing does not threaten his news announcement frame. On the contrary, he sees his boyfriends absence as a way to redirect the exchange on the subject of Lilys adoption. However, Jay does not know that and reframes Mitchells big news from line 26 as news of Mitchell and Camerons breakup. In this utterance, Jay clearly positions himself by adopting a patriarchal stance, e.g. he does not show emotions at the idea of his son breaking up with his partner but rather grasps the opportunity to criticize him. Moreover, he once again indexes misogyny by using the word drama queen to refer to a woman who is overly dramatic in her reactions. Thus he positions himself dismissively towards Cameron while referring to him as a man whose reactions are womanly unlike his reactions which is a serious critique according to his patriarchal ideology. 4.1.3 Frames and humour In general the sitcom frame raises expectations such as the presence of a live audience and laughs, easily perceptible jokes, and a theatrical set. Modern Family on the contrary has an obvious intention of appearing real because it is shot on location, with a single camera that imitates the documentary point of view. Therefore, the sitcom frame, in which we expect funny things to happen is turned into a more dramatic and realistic family frame where funny situations happen by way of rupture with the realistic frame in place. By way of example, Jays indexing of patriarchal Discourse is exaggerated to such an extent that it is impossible for us to believe that the character is not caricaturized. Similarly, the expectations created by Mitchell himself about his relationship with Cam are in total disjunction with the way he acts with him when he turns on the music (cf. 5).

12

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

In this exchange all the elements that are brought up by Mitchell or later Alex, and that make sense in the news of the adoption footing that is trying to build Mitchell are diverted to take another meaning, generally offensive, than the one Mitchell wants to give. For instance, big news on line 26 is reframed as boobs for Cameron, then a baby is reframed as a distraction that is subsequently replaced by a dog by Jay on lines 38-39; and then as a source of chaos by Claire on line 43. Finally, even Mitchell and Camerons exchange is subject to a misunderstanding as they do not agree on the meaning of turn it off on line 73. All these absurd reframings and misunderstandings certainly help create a humorous tone and the way the characters deal with them is also a resource for comedy. For instance, instead of making a scene to her husband when he flirts with Jays wife, Claire lectures him like a child. Here, the misunderstanding occurs because of Glorias strong South American accent which to Phils ear transforms phil into feel. 4.2 Discussion Throughout the interaction, Jay displays his positioning into patriarchy and indexes it through the way he addresses his son. But he also displays his father position by talking to his son in a very direct and brisk manner that makes his remarks sound like order. He assumes his son should follow his opinion because he is his son which is also a way of positioning into patriarchy. It is because of their close familial relationship that the participation framework cuts out all the other family members, except Claire because she is also of Jays lineage. In response to his fathers patriarchal order, Mitchell adopts inside the participation framework a defensive footing because he considers himself as much as a man as his father. In this participation framework, he addresses mainly to his father, by refuting all the absurd propositions his father make in response to his news of the adoption footing. Susan Hoyle (1993) analyses disruptive events in relation to humour in the sportscasting frame and I found some similar points between her disruptive events and mine. The whole point about disruptive events is that they have to be unexpected in the frame, in other words they have to either shift the frame or change the footing not only unexpectedly but in an absurd or ridicule way. In Hoyles article, this is achieved for instance through the use in the sportscasting frame, in which for instance the two boys call themselves after real basketball players, of references to the literal frame such as Joshs basement (Hoyle 1993: page???). Therefore, the collocation of two elements from two different frames creates a sense of comedy because it is unlikely a professional basketball player would ever come and play in Joshs basement. Regarding my extract, an example of disruptive events happens for instance on lines 67 to 69, in Mitchell and Camerons exchange:
72 73 74 Mi Ca Mi just turn it off\ i CANT turn it off\ its who i am\ the MUsic\

To my sense, this exchange is funny primarily because of the misunderstanding on the term turn it off but also and this is related to Hoyles disruptive events because Jays footing coincidentally leaked into the footing Cameron assumes that Mitchell adopts with him. On line 50 for instance, Jay says that Cameron was a bit of a drama queen

13

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

which is exactly the indirect message that Cameron thinks Mitchell is addressing him. Considering Ochs and Taylors (1993) assumptions about the protagonist vulnerable role in the narrative activity, it is interesting to observe that Jays evaluations starts when Mitchell aligns himself differently with his announcement on line 33. By trying to explain when his longing for a child began, and maybe to add credibility to the announcement he wants to do, he starts telling the story of that longing. By adopting a narrative footing, Mitchell tries to achieve a certain kind of involvement in his audience, yet all he receives is a negative evaluation by his father on line 36:
36 37 J Mi woo::=thats a bad idea\ what=do mean\ bad idea\

But also by Claire on line 42:


42 43 44 Cl i=i=i=i think what dad is trying to say is tha:t\ mitchell\ youre a little uptight\ kids bring chaos and=and you dont handle it well\

By making him and Cameron the protagonists of his narrative, Mitchell hopes to prepare his audience for the announcement, but he only exposes himself to the scrutiny of the primary recipients, i.e. Jay and Claire, who eventually judge his fathering abilities. As Ochs and Taylor also note it, being problematized often triggers counterproblematizing in response, which is also how Mitchell reacts on lines 37, 40, 45, 49 and 55. 5. Conclusion The choice of a relatively long extract contrasts with all the case studies I had read so far which presented a panel of relatively short extracts, e.g. a comparison of the same frame encountered in different families. It forced me to make choices of analysis a shorter extract would not have made necessary. Namely, the division of the extract in parts is due to its length and because different activities located in the extract call for different frames. However, it was beneficial to be able to observe at the same time the behaviour of all the interactions participants, which would not have been possible without a long extract. It also allowed me to put Kendalls (2006) article in the perspective of a larger family. The extract is located at the beginning of the sitcom and it would be interesting to compare the analysis of the current extract with other extracts located further on in the timeline established by the sitcoms writers. One could notably aim to seek meaningful changes in Jays personality to see whether his patriarchal vision of family constitution changed so that he would also consider same-sex parents as valuable parents since the adoption by his son of a girl. However, it is questionable whether it is in the series favour to create such a change since Jays indexing of rigorous patriarchy in the context of his unconventional family is one of the things that make the show actually humorous. More generally, the strength of Modern Family resides in its clear exposure and denunciation of gender stereotypes. In the extract, we saw how one can be mistaken

14

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

by wrongfully contextualizing an utterance on the lexical level but also on the level of Discourse. There are numerous situations in which not only Jay but also Mitchell and Cameron show their positioning in stereotypical Discourses, e.g. when Cameron realizes that he has been yelling at a man selling Christmas fir trees because he assumed the man wanted to sell him a pink fir tree whereas he was actually pointing at regular trees behind the pink fir tree. Although it is used to make fun of its characters, the shows talent lies in denouncing everybodys gender prejudices and at showing that no one is above stereotypes. References Primary source Levitan, S. and C. Lloyd 2009 Pilot. Modern Family, season 1, episode 1. J. Winer (dir.) Aired 23 Sep 2009. Los Angeles: 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2010, DVD. Secondary sources Davies, B. and R. Harr 1990 Positioning: The discursive production of selves. In: R. Harr and L. van Langenhove (eds.) Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of Intentional Action. Malden: Blackwell. Available at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/%7Ealock/position/position.htm . Accessed on 20/12/2011. Duranti, A. and C. Goodwin (eds.) 1992 Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ensink, T. and C. Sauer (eds.) 2003 Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Goffman, E. 1974 Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, E. 1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press. Gumperz, J. J. 1992 Contextualization and understanding. In Duranti and Goodwin (eds.), 229-252. Hanks, W. F. 1992 The indexical ground of deictic reference. In Duranti and Goodwin (eds.), 43-77. Hanks, W. F.

15

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne

Garance Dupuis

2000

Indexicality. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology. 9. 1-2, 124-126.

Hoyle, S. M. 1993 Participation frameworks in sportscasting play: Imaginary and literal footings. In Tannen (ed.), 114-145. Kendall, S. 2006 Honey, Im home!: Framing in family dinner homecomings. Text and Talk. 4/5. 26, 411-441. Kendall, S. 2007 Father as breadwinner, mother as worker: Gendered positions in feminist and traditional discourses of work and family. In Tannen, Kendall and Gordon (eds.), 123-163. Ochs, E. and C. Taylor 1995 The Father Knows Best dynamic in dinnertime narratives. In: K. Hall and M. Bucholtz (eds.) Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self, New York: Routledge, 97-120. Tannen, D. 1993 Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tannen, D. and C. Wallat. 1993 Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In Tannen (ed.), 57-76. Tannen, D., S. Kendall and C. Gordon (eds.) 2007 Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Appendix I: transcript of an extract from the sitcom Modern Family


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Mi A P M Cl J M J P Cl P G P oh\ (5) (exhales loudly) (1.2) ((M opens door)) HEY:::\=HA=HA:=how are you\ hi: [guys [hey:\ heya\ ((offering Mitchell a bottle of wine)) [for you/ [oh thank you\ oh dont thank us=open=it dad is coming RIGHT beHIND ((bell rings)) toc=toc were he::re\ coming in\ dont worry dad\ nothing gay going on here\ (.) may I take your multicoloured coat and bejewelled cap/ ya\ (..) hey\ hey jay\ (giggles) gloria\ hi::\ how are you how [you doing\ [hi Gloria <(giggles)> how are you\</(giggles)> oh whatta BEAUTIful dress\ hi=thank you phi:l\ (laughs) o:k\ ((he touches Glorias hips pretending to feel the material of the dress))

16

Seminar : Framing the discourse Prof. Danile Klapproth University of Lausanne 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 Cl P J Mi

Garance Dupuis

J Cl H Cl Mi J Mi J Mi G Cl Mi P A Mi J

Mi

Mi Cl Mi Cl P Ca Mi Ca Mi Ca

NO\ ((slaps Phils hand)) hey\ phil\ (giggles) she says phil NOt fee:l (.) phil\ ha:\ so how was your trip\ it=was=good\ it=was=good=actually\ but e:r about that I (0.6) I have something that I need to tell you guys\=er\ (1) we didnt just go to vietna:m\=e:r=for pleasure=we=e::r (1.1) KINDA have some big news\ OH\ GOD\ if cam comes outta here with boobs Im leavin dad/ i hope hed emBArrass you mum\ oh\ dont mind her\ hailey had her first boy over today and (inhales) (0.4) phil=shot=him\ (exhales) (2.5) anyway\=e:r so about=about a year ago\ cam and i started to feel this longing\ you know for something more like a (0.5) maybe a baby\ woo::=thats a bad idea\ what=do mean\ bad idea\ what\ KIDS need a MOther\ (0.5) i mean if you two guys are bored=get a do:g\ ok\=were not BO:RED\ DA:D\ i support you mitchell\ even though youre not my son\ i=i=i=i think what dad is trying to say is tha:t\ mitchell\ youre a little uptight\ kids bring chaos and=and you dont handle it well\ o::h thats not what dads saying=its what YOUre saying and its insulting in a whole different way\ o:k\ people\ lets a:ll chillax\ HEY\ (0.6) wheres uncle cameron\ finally\ THANK YOU\ THANK YOU\ someone whos not insulting me notices hes not here\ o::h\ so thats the big announcement\=huh/ you two broke up\=we=well a baby wasnt gonna help that aNYway and you dont=let me tell you youre better off because\ he was a bit of a drama queen\ no=no=no=stop\=stop\no:\=(giggles) youre coming to my house and you insult me and my boyfriend who (0.5) by the way is not\ THAT\ dramatic\ and=<music>oh=my=god\ ((Intro theme from The Lion King starts playing as Cameron is solemnly approaching from behind Mitchell carrying a baby in his arms. Suddenly he raises the baby above his head with both hands in a theatrical stance. When he reaches the threshold of the living room a spotlight illuminates an Asian baby who is wearing a pink dress. Cameron looks very proud and smiles at Mitchells family who are facing him while Mitchell seems embarrassed and looks towards the floor.)) we adopted a baby\=(giggles) (inhales briskly as in surprise) her name is lily\ [OH] [OH] exCIting just turn it off\ i CANT turn it off\ its who i am\ the MUsic\ oh\=yes\=the music\</music>

17

You might also like