Abstract
This contribution adopts a pragmatic approach to framing in that it analyzes framing as a cooperative process (Tomasello 2008, Grice 1975) guided by information structural devices (Borchmann 2019, Haviland & Clark 1977, Halliday 1976).
According to Entman's (1993) paradigm, framing effects depend on a "transfer" of information from a text to a receiver. It is assumed that the text "contains" a frame which influences over the receivers consciousness, and which can be detected by the researcher through a content analysis. However, Entman also localizes frames to the recipient, and since the recipient's frames guide the recipient's understanding of the text (Schank 1999, Minsky 1975) there is no guarantee that the frame that the researcher detects in the text will influence the recipient. The definition does imply that the sender selects aspects and makes them more salient. This is the only mean for overcoming an eventual discrepancy between the frame of the text and the frame of the recipient. However, the means mentioned in a foodnote, xxx, are mainly d aboutness oriented not means for making aspetcs salient. Hence, the paradigm involves a number of cognition and communication related methodological problems.
The starting point for this article is that these problems can be traced back to the transfer metaphor which presupposes that communication is a one-way process and to the assumption that frames are (mental) content. An alternative is to consider framing as a cooperative process (Tomasello 2008, Grice 1975) distributed across participants and tools in an interaction (Hutchins 1995), and frames as cultural ways of regulating attention and action (Reed 1996, Geertz 1970). This view implies that framing must be studied in natural settings focusing on the ways in which the members of a culture regulate and coordinate attention and action. Following Entman, it is assumed that framing is a sign-based selection and accentuation of aspects of a perceived reality in order to promote particular decisions and actions; but instead of considering it a special case of communication, it is assumed that selecting aspects of a perceived reality in order to promote certain decisions and actions is our basic relation to the environment (Hodges & Baron 1992, Gibson 1979), and that natural languages includes conventional means for making aspects of a perceived reality salient in a cooperative activity, in particular the metacommunicative device of information structure (Borchmann 2019, Haviland & Clark 1977, Halliday 1976).
Through a socio-cognitive linguistic analysis of a small set of interactions in natural settings the article shows how framing unfolds as a cooperative process supported by information structural devices. Examples are given of formation of frames in gliding instruction, negotiation of frames in students' text work and in public debates, and coordination and attunement of frames in road cycling. The analyses are meant to be exemplary and to serve as a contribution to the solution to the methodological problem of predicting framing effects based on text analysis.
References
Entman, R. 1993. "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm". Journal of Communication 43 (4), 51-58.
Grice
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Reed, E. S. 1996. Encountering the world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello
According to Entman's (1993) paradigm, framing effects depend on a "transfer" of information from a text to a receiver. It is assumed that the text "contains" a frame which influences over the receivers consciousness, and which can be detected by the researcher through a content analysis. However, Entman also localizes frames to the recipient, and since the recipient's frames guide the recipient's understanding of the text (Schank 1999, Minsky 1975) there is no guarantee that the frame that the researcher detects in the text will influence the recipient. The definition does imply that the sender selects aspects and makes them more salient. This is the only mean for overcoming an eventual discrepancy between the frame of the text and the frame of the recipient. However, the means mentioned in a foodnote, xxx, are mainly d aboutness oriented not means for making aspetcs salient. Hence, the paradigm involves a number of cognition and communication related methodological problems.
The starting point for this article is that these problems can be traced back to the transfer metaphor which presupposes that communication is a one-way process and to the assumption that frames are (mental) content. An alternative is to consider framing as a cooperative process (Tomasello 2008, Grice 1975) distributed across participants and tools in an interaction (Hutchins 1995), and frames as cultural ways of regulating attention and action (Reed 1996, Geertz 1970). This view implies that framing must be studied in natural settings focusing on the ways in which the members of a culture regulate and coordinate attention and action. Following Entman, it is assumed that framing is a sign-based selection and accentuation of aspects of a perceived reality in order to promote particular decisions and actions; but instead of considering it a special case of communication, it is assumed that selecting aspects of a perceived reality in order to promote certain decisions and actions is our basic relation to the environment (Hodges & Baron 1992, Gibson 1979), and that natural languages includes conventional means for making aspects of a perceived reality salient in a cooperative activity, in particular the metacommunicative device of information structure (Borchmann 2019, Haviland & Clark 1977, Halliday 1976).
Through a socio-cognitive linguistic analysis of a small set of interactions in natural settings the article shows how framing unfolds as a cooperative process supported by information structural devices. Examples are given of formation of frames in gliding instruction, negotiation of frames in students' text work and in public debates, and coordination and attunement of frames in road cycling. The analyses are meant to be exemplary and to serve as a contribution to the solution to the methodological problem of predicting framing effects based on text analysis.
References
Entman, R. 1993. "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm". Journal of Communication 43 (4), 51-58.
Grice
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Reed, E. S. 1996. Encountering the world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tomasello
Originalsprog | Engelsk |
---|---|
Titel | Framing in interaction - pragmatic approaches to framing analysis |
Status | Under udarbejdelse - 2024 |
Navn | Pragmatics and Beyond New Series |
---|---|
ISSN | 0922-842X |