Difference between revisions of "Seilhamer2011"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Mark Fifer Seilhamer |Title=On doing ‘being a crank caller’: A look into the crank call community of practice |Tag(s)=EMCA; Breachin...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Mark Fifer Seilhamer | |Author(s)=Mark Fifer Seilhamer | ||
| − | |Title=On doing ‘being a crank caller’: | + | |Title=On doing ‘being a crank caller’: a look into the crank call community of practice |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Breaching; Category bound activity; Community; Contextualization cue; Fabricated frame; Prank | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Breaching; Category bound activity; Community; Contextualization cue; Fabricated frame; Prank | ||
|Key=Seilhamer2011 | |Key=Seilhamer2011 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=43 | |Volume=43 | ||
|Number=2 | |Number=2 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=677–690 |
| + | |URL=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378216610002857 | ||
|DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.005 | |DOI=10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.005 | ||
| − | |Abstract=The prank phone call, also known as a crank call, represents what Goffman calls a fabricated | + | |Abstract=The prank phone call, also known as a crank call, represents what Goffman calls a fabricated frame – a communicative context in which one participant approaches the interaction as play, while the other participant treats it as reality. In this article, I make the case that a large number of prank call practitioners and avid fans constitute a crank call community of practice. Like Garfinkel's 1960s breaching experiments, crank callers selectively violate tacitly accepted social norms to expose the relationships people have with the everyday workings of society they regard as normal. The community places great importance on maintaining fabricated frames throughout the entirety of crank call interactions, requiring that callers not recognize their breaches and refrain from providing contextualization cues, such as laughter, that might shatter fabricated frames. To illustrate the sort of practices that the community encourages novice callers to emulate, I analyze one call by an established community member. This caller not only avoids contextualization cues that would shatter the fabricated frame, but also exploits contextualization cues’ inferencing power, both in his own use of them and in his intentional misinterpretation of the call recipient's cues, highlighting the extent to which these cues are normally taken for granted. |
| − | frame – a communicative context in which one participant approaches the interaction as | ||
| − | play,while the other participant treats it as reality. In this article, | ||
| − | number of prank call practitioners and avid fans constitute a crank call community of | ||
| − | practice. Like | ||
| − | tacitly accepted social norms to expose the relationships people have with the everyday | ||
| − | workings of society they regard as normal. The community places great importance on | ||
| − | maintaining fabricated frames throughout the entirety of crank call interactions, requiring | ||
| − | that callers not recognize their breaches and refrain | ||
| − | such as laughter, | ||
| − | the community encourages novice callers to emulate, I analyze one call by an established | ||
| − | community member. This caller not only avoids contextualization cues that would shatter | ||
| − | the fabricated frame, but also exploits contextualization cues’ inferencing power, both in his | ||
| − | own use of them and in his intentional misinterpretation of the call | ||
| − | highlighting the extent to which these cues are normally taken for granted. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 07:07, 28 November 2019
| Seilhamer2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Seilhamer2011 |
| Author(s) | Mark Fifer Seilhamer |
| Title | On doing ‘being a crank caller’: a look into the crank call community of practice |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Breaching, Category bound activity, Community, Contextualization cue, Fabricated frame, Prank |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 43 |
| Number | 2 |
| Pages | 677–690 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.09.005 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
The prank phone call, also known as a crank call, represents what Goffman calls a fabricated frame – a communicative context in which one participant approaches the interaction as play, while the other participant treats it as reality. In this article, I make the case that a large number of prank call practitioners and avid fans constitute a crank call community of practice. Like Garfinkel's 1960s breaching experiments, crank callers selectively violate tacitly accepted social norms to expose the relationships people have with the everyday workings of society they regard as normal. The community places great importance on maintaining fabricated frames throughout the entirety of crank call interactions, requiring that callers not recognize their breaches and refrain from providing contextualization cues, such as laughter, that might shatter fabricated frames. To illustrate the sort of practices that the community encourages novice callers to emulate, I analyze one call by an established community member. This caller not only avoids contextualization cues that would shatter the fabricated frame, but also exploits contextualization cues’ inferencing power, both in his own use of them and in his intentional misinterpretation of the call recipient's cues, highlighting the extent to which these cues are normally taken for granted.
Notes
