Given the growing popularity of AI tools in everyday life, recent research on conversational AI has highlighted the need to closely examine users’ interactions with AI in relation to the social settings in which they are embedded, so as to better understand what users do in and through such interactions. In this study, I analyze audio recordings of one family’s interactions with and around a voice-based Google device. Extending studies of the various ways in which frames are interrelated in talk, I demonstrate how family members reframe and blend frames to integrate their exchanges with Google Assistant into their interactions with each other, and show that evaluations of Google Assistant serve a key role in this management of frames. I also discuss how frequently attributions of intelligence and intent feature in such evaluations, which I suggest draw on and contribute to popular discourses of AI as “intelligent machines.”
ChoeH (2020) Talking the cat: Footing lamination in a Korean livestream of cats mukbang. Journal of Pragmatics160: 60–79.
5.
DiDomenicoSBoaseJ (2013) Bringing mobiles into the conversation: Applying a conversation analytic approach to the study of mobiles in co-present interaction. In: TannenDTresterAM (eds) Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media. Georgetown University Press, pp.119–132.
6.
GeeJP (1999) Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourse. Taylor & Francis.
7.
GeorgakopoulouA (2006) Thinking big with small stories in narrative and identity analysis. Narrative Inquiry16(1): 122–130.
8.
GoertzelB (2014) Artificial general intelligence: Concept, state of the art, and future prospects. Journal of Artificial General Intelligence5(1): 1–48.
9.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis. Harper & Row.
10.
GoffmanE (1981) Footing. In: Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.124–159.
11.
GordonC (2002) “I’m Mommy and you’re Natalie”: Role-reversal and embedded frames in mother-child discourse. Language in Society31(5): 679–720. DOI: 10.1017/S004740450231501X.
12.
GordonC (2008) A(p)parent play: Blending frames and reframing in family talk. Language in Society37(3): 319–349.
13.
GordonC (2013) Beyond the observer’s paradox: the audio-recorder as a resource for the display of identity. Qualitative Research13(3): 299–317.
HoyleS (1993) Participation frameworks in sportscasting play: Imaginary and literal footings. In: TannenD (ed.) Framing in Discourse. Oxford University Press, pp.114–145.
16.
İkizoğluD (2019) ‘What did it say?’: Mobile phone translation app as participant and object in family discourse. Journal of Pragmatics147: 1–16.
17.
İkizoğluD (2021) Agency and Participation in Multilingual Family Interaction. PhD dissertation, Georgetown University.
18.
JonesR (2004) The problem of context in computer mediated communication. In: LeVinePScollonR (eds) Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Georgetown University Press, pp.20–33.
19.
KoeneckeANamALakeE, et al. (2020) Racial disparities in automated speech recognition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(14): 7684–7689. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1915768117.
20.
KohJ (2024) Interaction With and About Conversational User Interfaces: An Interactional Sociolinguistic Approach [Ph.D. Dissertation, Georgetown University]. hdl.handle.net/10822/1088643
21.
KyratzisA (2022) Latina girls’ peer play interactions in a bilingual Spanish-English U.S. preschool: Heteroglossia, frame-shifting, and language ideology. Pragmatics20(4): 557–586.
22.
LabovWWaletzkyJ (1967) Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In: HelmJ (ed.) Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. University of Washington Press, pp.12–44.
23.
PanY (2022) Framing in interactive academic talk: A conversation-analytic perspective. Pragmatics32(1): 131–157.
24.
PorcheronMFischerJEReevesS, et al. (2018) Voice interfaces in everyday life. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, pp.1–12.
25.
PützOEspositoE (2024) Performance without understanding: How ChatGPT relies on humans to repair conversational trouble. Discourse & Communication18(6): 859–868.
26.
ReevesSPorcheronM (2023) Conversational AI: Respecifying participation as regulation. In: HousleyWEdwardsABeneito-MontagutR, et al. (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Digital Society. SAGE Publications, pp.573–588.
27.
RibeiroBT (1993) Framing in psychotic discourse. In: TannenD (ed.) Framing in Discourse. Oxford University Press, pp.77–113.
28.
RoblesJSDiDomenicoSRaclawJ (2018) Doing being an ordinary technology and social media user. Language & Communication60: 150–167.
29.
ScollonRBhatiaVLiD, et al. (1999) Blurred genres and fuzzy identities in Hong Kong public discourse: Foundational ethnographic issues in the study of reading. Applied Linguistics20(1): 22–43.
30.
StokoeEAlbertSBuschmeierH, et al. (2024) Conversation analysis and conversational technologies: Finding the common ground between academia and industry. Discourse & Communication18(6): 837–847.
31.
TannenD (2004) Talking the dog: Framing pets as interactional resources in family discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction37(4): 399–420.
32.
TannenD (2006) Intertextuality in interaction: Reframing family arguments in public and private. Text & Talk26(4–5): 597–617.
33.
TannenDWallatC (1993) Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination/interview. In: TannenD (ed.) Framing in Discourse. Oxford University Press, pp.57–76.
34.
TannenDKendallSGordonC (eds) (2007) Family Talk: Discourse and Identity in Four American Families. Oxford University Press.
35.
TovaresA (2012) Watching out loud: A television quiz show as a resource in family interaction. In: AyaßRGerhardtC (eds) The Appropriation of Media in Everyday Life. John Benjamins Publishing, pp.105–130.
