Chapter 4 Data Analysis and Discussions
4.5. SV for Structure of Frame
According to Table 42, among features of sentence patterns, shifting of question form (71.4%) is more frequently applied than shifting of syntactic voice (28.6%).
Among sentence patterns, SVF is applied most frequently for submaxim +Maxim of Quantity: be informative as required, and less for +Maxim of Manner:
avoid obscurity.
4.5. SV for Structure of Frame
1. Hierarchical relationship among frames in discourse structure
Tannen (1993) suggests that in one speech event, there may be more than one frame intertwined or overlapped with each other. She also points out that frames have levels. Tannen’s (1993) theory is confirmed in this study.
In discourse structure, it includes conversational structure and narrative structures. Narratives are embedded in conversation; event is embedded in narrative frame. In one of the data analyzed in this study, it is found that at least three narrative frames are embedded in the conversational frame. Example (45) is illustrated below.
(45)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
M: (0)XXX…不知道……
M: ..像會計他們也是 X..沒有考會計師..他們好像也是當四年..副理經理協理 也是滿賺多啊
F: …那是會計……
M: …對就是那種走路會甩一甩的..他就是..他辯論比賽啊 F: ..嗯
M: ..他那組就是..完全都抽籤的..然後他大概…讓自己被當..自己當組長 啊……
These narratives include topics about global warming, job, and debate. SV is applied for constructions of these frames. The illustration of hierarchical relationship among frames in discourse structure is showed in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Hierarchical relationship among frames in discourse structure Narrative
Structure X
event Narrative Structure Y Conversational Structure
114
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
2. Hierarchical and horizontal structure of frames
According to Tannen (1993), frames have levels. In the study, it is found that frames involve hierarchical and horizontal structures. Hierarchical structure of frames include subordinate denotative level, metalinguistic level, and dominant metacommunicative level.
The illustration of hierarchical structure of frame is presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Hierarchical structure of frame
Example (46) illustrates using SV as linguistic device for construction of hierarchical frames.
(46)
ei 可是我覺得…(0.8)那個末日…(0.3)就是那種..末世預言那種傳說..就 是很奇怪..他們…(0.5)這個像是這個是很有根據..可是他們那個只是好 像單純預言就說是..是世界末日這樣子
In example (46), the speaker shifts to low density and low formality colloquial forms such as “覺得” and “很奇怪.” In this example, the literal meaning represents the denotative phase of frame. On metalinguistic level, it is disagreement that is the underlying purpose the speaker intends to convey. On metacommunicative level,
115 metacommunicative
level metalinguistic level
denotative level
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
solidarity is concerned explains why the speaker encodes the message in a euphemistic way.
Frames also include horizontal structure. In one of the data analyzed in this study, it is found that at least three narrative frames are embedded in the conversational frame. The three narratives include topics about global warming, job, and debate.
3. The Homonymy of frames
In some cases, although the linguistic devices applied are the same, they serve for different functional purposes. Example (46) illustrates this point.
(47)
ei 可是我覺得…(0.8)那個末日…(0.3)就是那種..末世預言那種傳說..就 是很奇怪..他們…(0.5)這個像是這個是很有根據..可是他們那個只是好 像單純預言就說是..是世界末日這樣子
In example (46), the speaker shifts to low formality and low density colloquial such as “覺得” and “很奇怪”which indicates evaluation of narrative structure and also implies an expressives act, displaying the homonymy of frames.
116
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Chapter 5 Conclusion
5.1. Summary of the Major Findings
In this study, major patterns are found as below.
1. Linguistic strategies
In this study, it is found that frame can be identified through shifting of lexical choices based on semantic density, word formality, and word frequency, as well as through shifting of syntactic devices which include sentence complexity, sentence completeness, and sentence patterns. However, lexical devices are more functional than syntactic devices. It is purposed that SV on lexical level is using as the main linguistic device for manifestation of frame owing to lexical devices are much efficient and effective for people to manipulate and to perceive than syntactic devices.
In addition, on lexical level, it is found that change of semantic density is the most prominent lexical device for SVF, less is word formality, and even less is word frequency. In addition, on syntactic level, it is found that change of sentence complexity is the most prominent devices for SVF, less is sentence completeness, and even less is sentence patterns.
Among low semantic density words, pragmatic particle is the most prominent feature, and less are pro-form and discourse marker; among high semantic density words, the prominent feature is technical term & jargon. However, among low formality words, the most prominent feature is vernacular, and less is pragmatic
117
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
particle; among high formality word, the most prominent feature is archaic form, and less is technical term & jargon.
Among sentence complexity, shifting from simple sentence to complex sentence is the most prominent feature; among sentence completeness, shifting from fragment to complete sentence is mainly used.
2. Discourse structure
On discourse level in a narrative, SV is most frequently used to signal elaboration, less is evaluation. It seems that speakers tend to use SV (especially lexical shifting to low density/ low formality/ mid frequency words) to signal that they are offering subjective judgments to the contents of an event. However, when speakers elaborate their evaluation, they choose the opposite way, shifting to words of high density, high formality, low frequency, and complex sentences.
In addition, it is found that speakers tend to use SV (especially lexical shifting to high density/ high formality/ low frequency words) to signal abstract and orientation of narrative.
In conversational structure, SVF is largely used in body for topic continuity;
both lexical devices and syntactic devices are prominent.
In addition, it is found that speakers tend to use SV (especially lexical shifting to high density/ high formality/ low frequency words and complex sentences) to signal topic shifting.
118
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
3. Illocutionary acts
Among the five types of illocutionary acts, SV is applied most frequently for assertives, less for expressives and directives, and never for commisssives and declaration.
In addition, it is found that speakers tend to use SV (especially lexical shifting to low density/ low formality) to signal expressives; and speakers tend to use SV (especially lexical shifting to high density/ low frequency) to signal directives.
4. CP
Among CP, SV is applied most frequently for Maxim of Quantity and Maxim of manner, especially the submaxims +Maxim of Quantity: be informative as required and +Maxim of Manner: avoid obscurity. It seems that speakers tend to use SV (especially shifting to high density/ high formality/ low frequency words and complex sentences) when dealing with the two submaxims.
5. Embedding and hierarchical structure of frame
The embedded relationship of frame is found in this study. In discourse structure, the overriding frame is conversational structure, while there are still narrative structures embedded in it. Also, hierarchical structure of frames, including subordinate denotative level, metalinguistic level, and dominant metacommunicative level, are verified in this study.
119
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
5.2 Conclusions
First of all, frame can be identified through stylistic variation. Linguistic devices applicable include lexical choices (based on semantic density, word formality, and word frequency) and syntactic selections (based on sentence complexity, sentence completeness, and sentence patterns).
Second, frame on pragmatic level－including discourse structure, illocutionary acts, and Cooperative Principle－can be manifested by stylistic variation. The distributions between linguistic choices (of both strategies and features) and selection of functional strategies for surface representation of frame can be patternized.
Last, frame does have hierarchical structure, the existence of which can be verified by stylistic variation.
5.3. Limitations and Suggestions
First of all, only the goals of SV are counted and categorized; the interaction between the source and the goal of SV are ignored in this study. Therefore, it is suggested that future studies analyze both sources and goals of SVF. Second, components of a conversational structure include opening, body, pre-closing, and closing; however, owing to the nature of the data adopted, only body of conversation is analyzed in this study. Therefore, it is suggested that data of complete structure of conversations should be analyzed. In addition, SVF patterns for other pragmatic principles (such as Politeness Principle), which are excluded this time, should be examined in future studies. Last, although phonological aspect is not discussed in this study, variation of phonological devices for frame is also worth investigating.
120
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
References
Abelson, R. P. (1975). Concepts for representing mundane reality in plans.
Representation and understanding, 273-309. New York: Academic Press.
Auer, P. (1995). Bilingual Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps toward an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, Codes and Control, Vol. 1: Theoretical Studies towards a Sociology of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Blom, J. P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures:
Code-switching in Norway. Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnographic communication, ed. by J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes, 407-434. Oxford, UK:
Basil Blackwell.
Chafe, W. L. (1977). The recall and verbalization of past experience. Current issues in linguistic theory, ed. by R. W. Cole, 215-46. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 123-131. Berkeley, California:
University of California.
Frake, C. (1997). Plying frames can be dangerous: Some reflections on methodological in cognitive anthropology. Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development, Vol. 3, 1-7.
Gal, S. (1979). Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual Austria. New York: Academic Press.
121
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. Forms of Talk, 124-159. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Studies in Syntax and Semantics III: Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole & J. Morgan, 183-98. New York: Academic Press.
Grosjean, F. (1995). A psycholinguistic approach to code-switching: The recognition of guest words by bilinguals. One speaker, two languages Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, ed. by L. Milroy & P. Muysken. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hausenblas, K. (1993). The Position of Style in Verbal Communication. Studies in Functional Stylistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Heller, M. (1988). Introduction. Codeswitching: anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives, ed. by M. Heller. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Holmes, J. (1992). An introduction to sociolinguistics. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
Hoyle, S. M. (1993). Participation frameworks in sportscasting play: Imaginary and literal footings. Framing in Discourse, ed. by D. Tannen, 114-145. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hymes, D. (1974). Ways of speaking. Linguistic anthropology: a reader.
433-451.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hymes, D. (1988). Communicative Competence. Sociolinguistics, ed. by U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. J. Matthier. Berlin, De Gruyter.
Kirschner, C. (1984). Style-shifting and the Spanish-English bilingual. Hispanic Linguistics, 1(2): 273-282.
122
‧
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. Language in the inner city: Studies in Black English vernacular, ed. by W. Labov, 354-396. Philadelphia: University of Washington Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Group Ltd.
McClure, E. (1977). Aspects of code-switching in the discourse of bilingual Mexican- American children. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 93-115.
McClure, E., & McClure, M. (1988). Macro-and micro-sociolinguistic dimensions of code-switching in Vingard. Codeswitching: Anthropological and sociolinguistic perspectives, ed. by M. Heller, 25-51. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Minsky, M. (1975). A Framework for representing knowledge. The Psychology of Computer Vision, ed. by Patrick H. Winston, 211-277. New York: McGraw Hill.
Milroy, L., & Muysken, P. (1995). One speaker, two languages Cross-disciplinary perspectives on code-switching, ed. by L. Milroy & P. Muysken. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual Speech: A Typology of code-mixing, Vol. 11.New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Duelling languages: grammatical structure in codeswitching, New York: Oxford University Press.
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social Motivation for Codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Ortega y Gasset, J. (1959). The difficulty of reading. Diogenes7(28):1-17.
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I'll start a sentence in English y termino en espanol:
Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581-616.
Rickford, J. R., & McNair-Knox, F. (1994). Addressee-and topic-influenced style shift:
A quantitative sociolinguistic study. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, 235-76. New York: Oxford University Press.
123
‧
Ross, R. N. (1975). Ellipsis and the structure of expectation. San Jose State Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1:183-91.
Romaine, S. (1995). Bilingualism. London: Longman.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. Representation and Understanding:
Studies in Cognitive Science, 211-236. New York: Academic Press.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language, Vol. 50, 696-735.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Schilling-Estes, N. (2002). 15 Investigating Stylistic Variation. The handbook of language variation and change, ed. by J. K. Chambers & N. Schilling-Estes.
Blackwell Publisher.
Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1975). Scripts, Plans, and Knowledge. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University.
Tay, M. W. (1989). Code switching and code mixing as a communicative strategy in multilingual discourse. World Englishes, 8(3): 407-417.
Tannen, D., & Wallat, C. (1987). Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. Framing in Discourse, ed. by D. Tannen, 57-76. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (1993). What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations.
Framing in Discourse, ed. by D. Tannen, 14-56. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, D. (1986). That's Not What I Meant! How conversational style makes or breaks relationships. New York: Ballantine.
Timm, L. A. (1993). Bilingual code-switching: An overview of research. Language and culture in learning: Teaching Spanish to native speakers of Spanish, ed. by B. J. Merino, H. T.
Trueba & F. A. Samaniego, 94-112. Bristol, Pennsylvania: Falmer Press.
124
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Thompson, G. L. (2011). Code-switching as style-shifting. International Journal of Language Studies, 5(4):1-18.
Vogt, H. (1954). Contact of languages. Word, 10:365-74.
Wardhaugh, R. (2010). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Woolard, K. (2004). Codeswitching. A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by A. Duranti, 73-94.Oxford: Blackwell.
125