Another perspective on the notion of 'framing' as a signalling device for (re)contextualising a message or part thereof, can be derived from Bauman (1975: 292) who makes reference to what he calls 'an interpretive frame' which cues an audience about what to expect from a verbal 'performance' which is to follow. This appears to relate to the concept of 'framing move' as outlined above. He gives some examples of contextualising frames, which, if compared with those types of exchange 'moves' already outlined above, will reveal some correlations:
At the same time, however, the two uses of the term 'frame' must be distinguished. From a Discourse Analysis perspective, 'frame' is an element of structure at the rank 'exchange', and realises a framing move within the 'boundary exchange'. Bauman's term 'interpretive frame' is realised at the grammatical level by any number of semantic categories, and may indeed open sequences of verbal performance events or transactions, but he makes no claim for their place in any structural analysis of discourse. What I would like to point out here is that such notions of 'interpretive frame' have relevance in defining the context of interaction, and that such types of frame sometimes appear in, or can be conflated with what I see are elements of the structure of the email post, the framing or reframing move, which typically seem to occur at the beginning of posts or at the beginning of exchanges within posts. Bauman's notion of interpretive frames which he specifically relates to verbal art as 'performance' derives from Gregory Bateson: a frame is metacommunicative. Any message which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the messages included within the frame" (Bateson 1972[1955]:188). Bauman goes on to suggest a number of ways in which such metacommunicative frames may be signalled:
Within the context of this mailing list's interaction, these types of metacommunicative signals can be identified, and relate to the poster's need to cue the audience that while their comments may be seen as perhaps face-threatening (see Appendix 6: Brown & Levinson ), they should be read as comments on the perceived context of interaction and not taken 'literally'. In effect, because most of the discussion must centre on contentious issues or points of disagreement as mentioned above (see p. 12), then if discussion is not to devolve into 'flame war', certain linguistic signalling devices must be brought into play in order to mitigate the possibility of someone taking offence at what might be said. Tone of voice, facial expression and other paralinguistic signals are obviously not available, and the only formatting conventions in use, (and not so popularly as they are to some extent agreed to be signals of linguistic incompetence) are the 'smiley' or emoticon ( :-), :-7. ;^] ) and its variations, plus the convention of capitalizing to represent YELLING. Evidence of linguistic framing signals can readily be identified in the examples already quoted above. For example, in the main example, at (2.1) the word 'snip' usually encased in brackets, signals that part of the quoted message has been deleted. This is seen as a strategy to mitigate a Face Threatening Act (cf section 8.5) by acknowledging that an important and perhaps significant part of another's message has been summarily cut out. At (3), the writer says 'LOL' which is shorthand for 'laughing out loud', and as such realises a positive politeness strategy (1. 4 in Brown and Levinson op cit.). As such, such moves can be seen as another form of 'modality' in the way Hodge and Kress (1988: 122-123) have defined it: a way of signalling the writer's stance or position in relation to the audience; a means of expressing their 'affinity' or lack of affinity, in relation to considerations of dimensions of power-distance and solidarity between members: Modality expresses affinity - or lack of it - of speaker with hearer via an affirmation of their affinity about the status of the mimetic system. Affinity is therefore an indicator of relations of solidarity or of power, that is, relations oriented towards the expression of solidarity or the expression of power (difference). A high degree of affinity indicates the expression of solidarity between participants. A low degree of affinity indicates that power difference is at issue. Either...may be expressed via a modality of high affinity with the mimetic system. An important point that I wish to make is that unless participants have access to the norms of interaction that have formed during the process of negotiation over list culture, and the relative validity or truth value of what Hodge and Kress call the 'mimetic system', they will be unable to decode such signals of modality successfully. They will, to use another term prevalent onlist, 'get their buttons pushed'.
In their book, "Politeness. Some universals in language usage." 1987, Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson outline a typology of strategies for doing face threatening acts (FTAs). A face threatening act is anything that might be seen to impinge upon or take away honour, or status from an interlocutor. These strategies therefore should be realised by certain locutions within the interpersonal metafunction.[ It seems instructive to quote the list in its entirety, and the reader is referred to Appendix 6: not available in this version - apologies, ACD]. It is obvious that some of these strategies refer directly to textual features in achieving their goals of reducing or mitigating the possibility of an aggressive reaction on the part of a perceived audience, and some of them correlate highly with the metacommunicative framing strategies outlined by Bauman above (8.1.2), especially those subsumed under the section 'Off Record'. It must be noted, of course, that these are not strategies posited as those which 'should' be consciously used, but those which have been observed by Brown and Levinson to be common in interaction. Those strategies which refer to lexicogrammar, for example 1. 4 (use in-group identity markers), 2. 13 (ask reasons ie, use mood:interrogative), 5.2 (question, hedge), 7. 7 (impersonalize through use of passive voice, personal pronouns, pov distancing etc), and 7. 9 (nominalize) are especially salient when considering how such strategies may be realised at the metafunctional level. Brown and Levinson derive a formula that can be applied in order to decide what strategies are likely to be used in any situation dependent on the likely perceived level of threat in making an FTA. They state: [...calculations that members actually seem to make] involves the following factors in many and perhaps all cultures: (i) the 'social distance' (D) of S and H (a symmetrical relation); (ii) the relative 'power' (P) of S and H (an asymmetrical relationship); (iii) the absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the particular culture (op cit: 74)
It is obvious that the 'social distance' referred to above at (i) is actually another way of expressing the notion 'solidarity', so that this typology correlates very highly with those notions of affinity and modality as expressions of power and solidarity outlined by Hodge and Kress. Also, I would venture to link the notion of 'R' at (iii) which social agreement regarding the status of the mimetic system (cf 8.3.1), and hence, the (cultural) context of interaction. Still another approach to the problem of discerning structure within messages may be provided by Hoey (in Coulthard (ed) 1994) who asks whether the typical problem-solution structure in discourse is actually signalled or reflected in language, or is only intuited by a reader. He suggests a representation of this structure as being realised in four moves; that which follows is the 'unmarked' or time sequenced arrangement: Situation - Problem - Response - Evaluation In this way, a reader can 'project' through clues in the text at the level of structure and the lexis of Vocabulary 1 and 2 ( words of textual cohesion such as conjunctions, relative pronouns),about what is likely to follow. Hoey refers to Winter's (1977) work on clause relations signalled by lexical means, making specific reference to Vocabulary 3 which is seen as a set of lexically full, or content type lexis: "The notion of vocabulary 3 is crucial to our understanding of how a discourse signals to its reader/listener what structure it has." (op cit: 34) Therefore it is perhaps not so difficult to identify certain lexicogrammatical 'items' in a text which might alert the reader in context to what is going on, or allow them to decide at an analytical level, what function each part of the text realises. Most, if not all of these lexical items, would probably be indicators of modality, or as Martin (1996) calls them, Appraisal words which help to 'construe value' in text. This again links most closely to what goes on at the interpersonal level. If the list of Response types above (7.5) is compared with this 4 step structure, it could be said that the Framing moves may be subsumed under Situation ( occasionally Problem); the Comments, Clarifys, Explains, Opinions, Tells and Requests are all versions of Response (occasionally doubling as Situation or Problem for the next move); while Evaluations, Flames and Ignores may all be read as Evaluative moves. Whether this could be seen as an over zealous application of Occam's razor is another matter. Up until this point, categories of moves have been tentatively identified, and strategies which could be used to mitigate possible 'face-threatening acts' have been cited. It has been noted that framing moves, wherever they occur in the message, but particularly at the beginning of a post, are significant in signalling to readers what orientation the writer has towards his/her audience in the material that is to follow. The actual linguistic realisation of such signalling is no doubt evident at all metafunctional levels, but for the purposes of this study, the interpersonal is deemed the most salient. Therefore in looking at further examples of text, a number of such signals should be isolated. The first is the mood of each clause. The selection of the subject of the clause and whether it is conflated with the theme of the sentence reveals whether the writer deems it significant. The verb tense and any modal verbs will signal the writer's degree of commitment towards what s/he is saying, whether something has occurred, is in progress, or is about to happen, and how likely that is. It will reveal whether the role of the writer is that of information giver, receiver or demander (K1 or K2). Following Hoey, Winter and Martin, appraisal words, or those expressing 'affinity' with either the context of interaction or the other participants should be noted, but because this would be too great an undertaking to do thoroughly within the confines of this study, these will only be noted in passing, especially if they are significant in predicting or labelling moves. Expressions of modality indicate speaker/writer's orientation towards the proposition being made, and should also be taken into account where evident. Markers of inclusion and exclusion, or solidarity and distance are also one of the most significant for understanding both the writer's stance and predicting how other readers will interpret such a stance. Therefore the use of personal pronouns, and forms of address in referring to other participants are posited as one of the most significant markers of orientation at the interpersonal level.
What follows are a number of closing sequences examined with both sets of categories in mind. The first categories to appear are those made under the more detailed proposals of move and act outlined at 7.5 - 7.12, and appear in square brackets [ ],while the pattern Situation-Problem-Response-Evaluation follows in braces { } Lexical items that were judged as signals on which the categories were decided are underlined. It should be obvious that some of the categories double up, ie, some moves fulfil two functions in the structure at the same time. Detailed commentary on the analyses can be found in Appendix 8: Closing sequences.
.....................................................
1.
become an organization that fights
for electronic access
at reasonable prices at all levels of government. TAP
(Taxpayers Asset Project) was originally
a Nader group. Of course, the ACLU is
better equipped to tackle constitutional law, but TAP has
done some great work keep a constant
eye on committee and regulatory action
that often goes unnoticed. [Comment: Evaluation]
ACLU volunteer. Great! [Comment:
{Evaluation}][Preclosing: Comment:
summing up]
simon [sig]
(alas, no sig file at all now)[identifier]
------------------------------COMMENT:
Lack of personal pronouns or mental process verbs, signals orientation of non personal involvement and certainty; subjects are organisations not related to self. At the same time appraisal lexis and modality is evident in expressions such as 'fights for' linked with 'reasonable'; thematicization of 'of course' expressing certainty towards the proposition that the ACLU is 'better' equipped to 'tackle'; plus use of term 'great', and the word 'volunteer', which is positively loaded.
-------------------------------------
2.
Not to keep going on this *off-topic*
thread
:-O!...[reF:S: ref/loop] but I have a copy of the bill
+ a few different versions of the amendments saved on
disk here... [reFrame: Setting:reason/apology] {Situation}
if anybody wants a copy, lemme know...[Request: K1/A1: offer: imperative
form]
An interesting thing to note though is the way that the
cyber-activist group came together.[reFrame:
Setting:opinion] {Situation} Talk
about a virtual work group...[Comment: Opinion] {Response}
interesting dynamics going on there.[Comment:
{Evaluation}]
James [sig]
==========================================================
James S----
<email address and web site url>
==========================================================
Any dead fish can float downstream. -Anon
"Ignis quidquid in nobis est-There is a certain fire within
us"
Ezra Pound -->[identifier]
------------------------------
...
3.
>Once again Fred has opened another
facet to the discussion.
>Communication is conflict.[reFrame: naming/loop]{Situation}
>And he immediately got a seconder{Response}. There are days
>when everyone here suddenly feels made up. {Problem}Is that
>simply that observation and analysis is unmasking the person
>behind the words over a period of time and picking up those
>little inconsistencies? [Comment:Rhetorical Question: K1/A1]
{Situation/Problem} ..[Quote]
well, frankie, masked superhero in our midst that you
are,[Naming/Setting: ref] I think that is a fair assumption,[Comment:
Opinion] {Response} but how does it relate to backchannel
chit chat?
[Comment: Rhetorical Question] There, I've unmasked a little
inconsistency. [Comment: {Evaluation}]
I shall return with blasts from the past.[Preclosing:
Comment: closure: threat/promise]
LD [sig]
-------------------------
.......
4.
This would all be rather theoretical
if it weren't for
the fact that I have a couple megs of archives coming
my way with an idea for a web page. [Comment: Clarify:
identity/muse] (Just downloaded a new HTML
cruncher.)[Comment: Clarify: reason] [reFrame:Setting: reason/time]
{Situation} I had in mind using comments, explanations and examples from
Netdynam in a light hearted exposition on the nature of email lists.
[Comment: Explain] {Situation} Then the ethics questions came up.
{Problem} Then the logistics of solving the ethics problems. [reFrame:
setting: time/ref] {Problem} Then the idea that writing about something
else might be a whole lot safer.[Comment: {Evaluation}] And that's
as far as I got.[reFrame: setting:time] {Response/Situation} But
the archives are still sitting there.[Comment: Muse] {Situation} As long
as they are, it is not purely theoretical.[Comment: Muse] {Response}
[Preclosing: closure: loop: veiled threat/promise. K1/A2?]
Simon [sig]
-----------------------------
5.
My experience with Roy feels very fruitful,
because it is
raising for both of us...and perhaps for some of you...larger
issues that may be worth exploring further.[Comment:
{Evaluation}]....So who wants to raft the whitewater
next? [Preclosing: closure: reference: rhet Q.]
Tracy K----@------ [sig]
-----------------------------
6.
....
If a person is struggling with the concepts then the level
of output can be scaled down to more basic explanations.[Offer
K1/A1] {Response to earlier Problem} As the title says,
[reFrame: Setting:loop] just some thoughts because I do not
have the time to do these issues justice.[Comment: Clarify:
reason] {Situation/Problem}The issues however are mislabelled at
the moment {Problem} and it would serve the discussion
better to split this up and deal with the discrete units on that
basis.[Comment: Opinion/ {Evaluation}] I still recommend David
Brin's "Earth" as an introduction to all of these concepts. The
storyline is skewed to the fanciful but the setting is well thought
out.[Preclosing: Comment: closure: reference] {Evaluation}
Frank [sig]
------------------------
7.
....
Earlier Pat had written:[reFrame: naming.Setting:loop/time]
All the world needs a villian and I have several favorites:
Laugh-In ...; MTV ... ; Rock music . ..[Comment: Identity].
[Quote] {Situation} This got me thinking about some of mine:[Reframe:
reason/opinion]{Response} Starbucks, Microbrews, Dulcimers, Shopping Malls,
Suburbs, Figure Skating, Denny's Restaurants, Volvos and little
footed "Darwin" fish on cars driven by people who have never read
Darwin.[Comment: Identity] {Evaluation} Oh what is this civilization
coming to.:-) [Comment: Muse/rhet Q] [Preclosing:
summing up]
Simon [sig]
--------------------------
These closing excerpts were chosen at random from different times in list history, and show closings that are not 'marked' either linguistically or normatively from my experience. Most of them close with some type of phase shift, signalled by a change in orientation from the main 'body' of the message. It can be seen that some type of evaluative comment is usually either included in the preclosing comment itself, or in the last part of the message which precedes any preclosure. Some preclosings turn to address the 'audience' with an offer or a suggestion, and in this manner they could be seen as a type of elicitation. They rarely, however, address specific list participants by name; it is understood that closings and their offers or requests are open for response or follow-up to all subscribed. Most orient toward the future, however, and in this way, all might be seen as eliciting, or forward-looking in orientation. A summary of these types of elicitations evident in the above examples follows: 1: evaluation-summing up 2: (end of body, pre-preclosing) offer 3: promise 4: veiled threat 5: request for action 6.: recommendation 7: evaluation-summing up/ rhetorical question.
NEXT CHAPTER - 7: ANALYSIS OF MAIN TEXT