【Abstract】This essay will discover how a participant （Teddy） constructs her family identity of an obedient daughter through the shift in frames by explaining 1）. How frames are shifted in the speech event 2）. How the participant （Teddy） constructs her ideal identity gradually during the process of intensive frame shifts.

【Key words】Frame analysis； Family discourse

【作者簡(jiǎn)介】張嵐（1997.03.15- ），女，漢族，寧波諾丁漢大學(xué)，英語專業(yè)學(xué)生。

1. Introduction

Family， as an initial site of everyday discourse and a touchstone for conversation （Kendall， 2007）， has provided significantly notable interactions that are valuable for discourse analysis. Frame， which could be defined as ‘what people think they are doing， or what they think is going on， in a situation （Agne， 2007， p.551）， is not an isolated concept but possesses a wide application in various sociolinguistic studies， especially for family discourse. To discover the characteristics and effects of more intense and concentrated frame shifts in family discourse， this essay extracts data from an episode of an American sitcom. Through the analysis， I will display how a specific interactive transformation shifts the frame and converts participants alignments， therefore displaying participants appropriate identity in family negotiation.

2. Literature review

2.1 Shift in footing

Frame shifting， as an applicable approach to solve dilemmas in conversation （Goodwin， 1996）， has become one of the main concerns of numerous scholars. Goodwin （1996） Goodwin （1996） stated that frame shifting frequently included changes in footing or alignment and she described frame shifting as a process of choosing to ‘initiate talk （or activity） which is not proposed by preceding action or the ongoing activity （p. 71）.

2.2 Mismatch in schema

Tannen and Wallat （1987） observed that， in a medical setting when a mothers schema for health and illness could not provide enough predication of her childs symptoms， the pediatricians frame was shifted from examination frame to consultation frame because of the mothers enquiries. Therefore， they proposed two terms， interactive frames and knowledge schema， to explain the situation of frame shifting. Interactive frame corresponds to Goffmans frame analysis， referring to ‘what activity is being engaged in， how speakers mean what they say （Tannen & Wallat， 1987， p.207）. On the other hand， knowledge schema is individuals expectations about ‘people， objects， events and settings in the world， which results from their prior knowledge and experience （Tannen & Wallat， 1987， p.207）. It is the mismatch in participants schema that triggers frame shifting.

2.3 Frame conflicting

Due to the subjectivity of the frame （i.e. people with different background perceive situations differently）， participators may perceive one frame differently. Ensink （2003） stated that frame-conflicts occurs when ‘people initially do not agree on which frame is the appropriate one， and claimed that the solution for frame-conflicts was a frame shift.

3. Analysis

3.1 Shift between Praising frame and Explaining frame

The shift from Praising frame to Explaining frame is not random but could be attributed to a conflict between participants perceived frame. In the praising frame， Teddy intends to praise her mother， whereas mom misunderstands the compliment ‘the way you do it as Teddys invitation of explaining the system of tossing recipes. This inconsistence is reflected distinctly in the subsequent Explaining frame where mom describes detailedly about her system while Teddy expresses reluctance during the explanation （falling intonation， simper， and impatient facial expression）.

3.2 Shift between Explaining frame and Dress style praising frame

As mentioned before， moms insipid topic and serious description in Explaining frame result in Teddys reluctance and disalignment. To achieve her aim of approaching her mother， Teddy changes the original serious footing to a more playful one by shifting to the topic of dressing. In addition， the previous experience of praising Ivy about her clothes also gives her confidence to use the same trick with her mother. In line 13， she initiates a new topic by saying But， instead， how about we， talk about clothes with a high intonation and each word given its due stress. Her thoroughly opposite tone， excited facial expressions suggest her shift in footing distinctly. Therefore， Teddy shifts the alignment from the initial serious and dreary footing in ‘teaching how to do housework to a more equal， intimate and relaxed relationship， and shifts to the frame of dressing praising.

3.3 Shift between Dress style praising frame and Refuse to hang out frame

In the Refuse to hang out frame， although it seems that the sudden ring tone from Teddys phone interrupts their interaction unintentionally， it actually acts as a key turning-point in the daughter-mother negotiation.

Within the expectation that complimenting a womans taste in clothing will please her， the daughter cunningly chooses the topic of dressing. However， the mothers schema pertaining to clothes is that ‘I do not care what I am wearing and she is also wearing old， dirty clothes that is not worth praising. Therefore， there is a distinct mismatch between the mother and daughters schema. The inconformity in schema results in participants opposite footings in this context， which is displayed clearly by the contrast between the mothers chill attitude and Teddys enthusiasm. In the perspective of the frame conflicting， the daughter is continuously complimenting her mother whereas the mother never understands the situation in this way and perceives the current frame as a common conversation about clothings. All of these inconsistencies push the daughter to shift the frame again.

3.4 Shift between Refuse to hang out frame and Asking for explanation frame

The final frame， ‘Asking for explanation， is the climax for the whole episode and it also indicates the successful construction of the intergenerational alliances between the mother and daughter.

The shift to the asking for explanation frame can be tracked back to the previous refusing to hang out frame. After failing to express her alignment accurately and explicitly in the previous attempts， Teddy perceives this as a proper time to show her identity adequately. As a result， she resolves her mothers confusion and builds her obedient identity by answering Does cinnamon come before coriander？ （line 25）， another application of intertextuality of the preceding texts. The contrast between the preceding reluctance of talking about her mothers recipe system with the current initiation of the topic with a soft voice and soulful gaze displays a strong alliance and warm alignment. In addition， the strategies of double meaning and metaphor are employed in this sentence with the interpretation of ‘does my friend （Ivy） come before my mom？.

4. Discussion

4.1 Frame shifting

My analysis of this conversation extended Goodwins （1996） idea that shifting frame occurred in an orderly way and it could serve as a practical solution to interactive dilemmas and rebuilding conversations. I also analyzed how the agent Teddy actively shifted the frame to achieve her purpose and consequently corroborated Pagliais （2012） statement that participants actively changed their footings and selected the appropriate framing to avoid the conflicts and openly disagreement.

4.2 Constructing identity

With a purpose of getting mothers permission to go to the cinema， the daughter tries to construct an obedient daughter identity and achieve a consistent alliance with her mom. However， she does not succeed in her first few attempts and experiences a constant adjustment. In the second frame ‘Explaining frame， the daughter shows no interest to her mothers explanation and immediately changes the topic， therefore， she fails to construct her identity because there is a conflicts between participants and topics. In Dress style praising frame， due to the fact that mother does not care what she is wearing， the disalignment towards topics impedes the Teddys identity construction again. However， in refuse to hang out frame， the choice of accompanying with mom instead of accepting her friends invitation suggests Teddys disalignment with her friend and alignment with mom. This corresponds to the second approach of constructing identity： taking up alignment to participants. Then， in the final frame， Teddys ideal obedient daughter identity is fully constructed through a question about the procedure of making spices Does cinnamon come before coriander？ （line 25）， which achieves the alignment between participants and participants， participants and topics simultaneously. Therefore， the completely consistent alignment allow Teddy displaying her identity of an obedient daughter adequately.

References：

[1]Goffman，E.（1974）Frame Analysis：An Essay on the organization of Experience.Boston：Northeastern University Press.

[2]Goffman，E.（1981）.Forms of Talk.Philadelphia：University of Pennsylvania Press.

[3]Tannen，D.（2005）.Conversational style：analyzing talk among friends.New York：Oxford University Press.