This paper deals with the concept of frame in terms of Goffman's theory and several previous discussions, and analyzes the gradual framing skills of participants at presidential debate. Those speakers' arguable strategic choices of disagreement are represented to achieve a leading status of the frame. So firstly, focusing audience's various contextual stances, I analysed conflict with their candidates through an interpretation of the ongoing frame, challenging, positive response and affirmation. Even though audience can be considered as an outsider of the frame, they frequently transfer frames, and locate their social, interactional relations. It is shown that framings for challenging and affirmation are embodied in the form of clarifying question, completion of exchange. And selective use of WHQs and pronouns are also suggested crucial linguistic strategies. In the remainder of the article, the participants' cooperative building is examined to prove the way how they manage conflict through alignment, overlap, paraphrase, and speak for another. Since the analysis is couched in interactional sociolinguistics, this paper finally proposes a clue for exploration of Korean argument style.

This paper deals with the concept of frame in terms of Goffman's theory and several previous discussions, and analyzes the gradual framing skills of participants at presidential debate. Those speakers' arguable strategic choices of disagreement are represented to achieve a leading status of the frame. So firstly, focusing audience's various contextual stances, I analysed conflict with their candidates through an interpretation of the ongoing frame, challenging, positive response and affirmation. Even though audience can be considered as an outsider of the frame, they frequently transfer frames, and locate their social, interactional relations. It is shown that framings for challenging and affirmation are embodied in the form of clarifying question, completion of exchange. And selective use of WHQs and pronouns are also suggested crucial linguistic strategies. In the remainder of the article, the participants' cooperative building is examined to prove the way how they manage conflict through alignment, overlap, paraphrase, and speak for another. Since the analysis is couched in interactional sociolinguistics, this paper finally proposes a clue for exploration of Korean argument style.

interactional sociolinguistics, conflict, framing, alignment, contextual meaning, social relation