Participation framework
| Encyclopedia of Terminology for CA and IL: Participation framework | |
|---|---|
| Author(s): | Burak S. Tekin (Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Turkey) (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9206-7506) |
| To cite: | Tekin, Burak S. (2023). Participation framework. In Alexandra Gubina, Elliott M. Hoey & Chase Wesley Raymond (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Terminology for Conversation Analysis and Interactional Linguistics. International Society for Conversation Analysis (ISCA). DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/74VD5 |
As an analytic concept, participation framework derives from Goffman’s work on footing (1981), which is concerned with the alignments of persons in the course of speech events. Goffman emphasized the inadequacy of the dyadic model of communication, involving only speakers and hearers, and proposed a reexamination of the forms of participation. He decomposed these traditional participant roles of speaker and hearer into their constituent sub-categories. Underscoring various forms of subordinate communication relative to a more substantial state of conversation, Goffman decomposed hearers into addressed and unaddressed hearers, bystanders, eavesdroppers, and overhearers; and speakers into some sub-categories such as animators, authors, principles and figures. The relational configurations of participants constitute the participation framework of the activity engaged in.
Building on Goffman’s ideas on footing and participation, Hanks (1990, 1992) showed that deictic terms and practices work to constitute the participation frameworks which are in a constant state of flux along with the unfolding interaction. He argued that deictic expressions such as “this”, “that”, “here”, “there”, and the like are part of a deictic field, which consists of the dynamic alignments and roles of participants in the participation framework in relation to the material environment of the situated activities. That is, deictic expressions, as they are intrinsically tied to the roles of participants, constitute the very context of interaction, specifying the dynamic relationships among the participants (Levinson 1988).
Charles and Marjorie Harness Goodwin, both in collaborative and individual studies, revisited the notion of participation and the organization of participation frameworks (C. Goodwin 1981, 2007; C. Goodwin & M. H. Goodwin 2004; M. H. Goodwin 1990, 2006). Their work introduced an analytical shift from the description of typologies for participants to the elaboration of the actions and practices persons perform exhibiting their engagements in the courses of situated activities (C. Goodwin & M. H. Goodwin, 2004). To exemplify, Goodwin (1980, 1990) described the social organization of a “he-said-she-said” gossip dispute activity among children. These disputes involve one party accusing another of having talked about them behind their backs, as reported by a third party (see M. H. Goodwin 1990: 195-198). As these he-said-she-said confrontations unfold through time, the children perform particular actions (such as accusing, defending, justifying, denying, contesting, complaining, informing, etc.) rotating multiple roles and identities, through which they moment-by-moment calibrate their participation status relative to the reported events.
Following the analytical perspective proposed by Goodwins, Mondada (2012) discusses various dimensions of participation in her work on multilingual business meetings. She shows that the participation of a speaker in these meetings is locally and interactionally negotiated and recognized, which may be constrained or enabled by language choice, and the participation framework is sensitive to the arrangement of the bodies in the material environment. Changes in the participation framework are manifested not only through linguistic resources but also embodied and material ones (see also Rae 2001; Sidnell 2009).
Activities involving larger groups present distinct affordances and constraints for participation. Different sets of participants may team up and engage in two or more simultaneous conversations each having its own turn-taking system, referred to as ‘schisming’ (Egbert 1997). Schisming involves a particular participation framework with at least two concurrent conversations, which are independently sustained. Similarly, public meetings with large numbers of audience members might entail distinct participation frameworks. As much as orators may invite responses from the audience by specifically designing their speeches, audience members may also collectively exhibit their orientations towards the speeches (Atkinson 1984; Lerner 1993). McIlvenny (1996) describes the organization of the participation of hecklers in participatory public meetings. He shows that hecklers may exploit the resources in the speeches of orators and launch their disaffiliative responses in the form of heckles. In response to the public speakers, more than one heckler may engage in doing heckling. Different hecklers may also respond to one another, producing heckles in turns. In this way, participation frameworks may be modified or transformed considering the emerging relationships among participants.
Additional Related Entries:
Cited References:
Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Public speaking and audience responses: Some techniques for inviting applause. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action (pp. 370-409). Cambridge University Press.
Egbert, M. M. (1997). Schisming: The collaborative transformation from a single conversation to multiple conversations. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 30(1), 1-51.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. (2007). Interactive footing. In E. Holt and R. Clift (Eds.), Reporting Talk (pp. 16-46). Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 222-244). Blackwell.
Goodwin, M. H. (1980). He-Said-She-Said: Formal cultural procedures for the construction of a gossip dispute activity. American Ethnologist, 7(4), 674-695.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization among Black Children. Indiana University Press.
Goodwin, M. H. (2006). The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. Blackwell Publishing.
Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. Chicago University Press.
Hanks, W. F. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context (pp. 43-77). Cambridge University Press.
Lerner, G. H. (1993). Collectivities in action: Establishing the relevance of conjoined participation in conversation. Text, 13(2), 213-245.
Levinson, S. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order (pp. 161-227). Northeastern University Press.
McIlvenny, P. (1996). Heckling in Hyde Park: Verbal audience participation in popular public discourse. Language in Society, 25, 27-60.
Mondada, L. (2012). The dynamics of embodied participation and language choice in multilingual meetings. Language in Society, 41, 213-235.
Rae, J. (2001). Organizing participation in interaction: Doing participation framework. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 253-278.
Sidnell, J. (2009). Participation. In S. D’hondt, J-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics of Interaction (pp. 125-156). John Benjamins.
Additional References:
Goodwin, C. (2004). A competent speaker who can’t speak: The social life of aphasia. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 14(2), 151-170.
Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1986). Gesture and coparticipation in the activity of searching for a word. Semiotica, 62(1/2), 51-75.
Hayashi, M., Mori, J., & Takagi, T. (2002). Contingent achievement of co-tellership in a Japanese conversation: An analysis of talk, gaze, and gesture. In C. E. Ford, B. A. Fox & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence (pp. 81-122). Oxford University Press.
Jirotka, M., Luff, P., & Gilbert, N. (1991). Participation frameworks for computer mediated communication. In L. Bannon, M. Robinson and K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW’91. Springer.
