Some possible definitions of the word “frame” include (1) “a
rigid structure surrounding a picture, door, or windowpane,” (2) ”a metal or
plastic structure holding the lenses of a pair of glasses,” and (3) “a rigid
supporting structure of a vehicle, aircraft, or other object.” Other possible definitions include (4) “a person’s
body, with reference to its size or build,” (5) "a basic underlying structure of a system, concept, or text,” and (6) “a single complete
picture in a series forming a cinema, television, or video film.”1
Erving Goffman, a noted
Canadian-American sociologist who, in his book Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience (1974),
explores the extent to which social frameworks enable us to organize and
interpret experience, describes frames as principles of organization that
govern our subjective involvement in events. Frame analysis is thus the
examination of those principles of organization.2 Some frames are
neatly ordered and arranged as systems of rules, while others are more
loosely arranged and articulated. Frames may be primary or secondary, implicit
or explicit, and they may function as guides to our understanding of social events
or situations. Every social group may utilize its own frames (viewpoints, attitudes,
or belief systems) for the purpose of dealing with and understanding social
reality.
Goffman says that framing may be
subject to vagueness, ambiguity, or error, which may lead to uncertainty or
dispute regarding whether a given event or situation has been correctly framed.
There may also be uncertainty or dispute regarding the nature and range of
subjects that can be included within a given frame, and the nature and range of
viewpoints that can be accommodated by a given frame. Thus, some interpreters
may describe some examples of framing (of intuitions, perceptions, concepts,
etc.) as examples of misreading or misframing.
Goffman also says that a
frame “organizes more than meaning; it also organizes involvement…All frames
involve expectations of a normative kind as to how deeply and fully the
individual is to be carried into the activity organized by the frames. [And] Of
course, frames differ quite widely in the involvement prescribed for
participants sustaining them.”3
Charles J. Fillmore (1976), an
American linguist who founded frame semantics, describes
framing as “the appeal, in perceiving, thinking, and communicating, to
structured ways of interpreting experiences.”4 He says that “in
characterizing a language system we must add to the description of grammar and
lexicon a description of the cognitive and interactional "frames" in terms of
which the language-user interprets his environment, formulates his own
messages, understands the messages of others, and accumulates or creates an
internal model of his world.”5
Robert M. Entman (1993), an American
political scientist, public policy analyst, and communication theorist, describes
framing as an activity in which some aspects of a perceived reality are "made more
salient in a communicating text in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment
recommendation for the item[s] described.”6
George Lakoff (2004), an American
cognitive scientist and linguist, explains that
“Frames are mental structures that
shape the way we see the world. As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the
plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our
actions. In politics, our frames shape our social policies and the institutions
we form to carry out policies. To change our frames is to change all of this.
Reframing is social change.”7
So, what kinds of frames are there?
What kinds of things can be framed? What is or can be inside or outside a
frame? How does a frame demarcate the inside from the outside, the delimited
from the undelimited, the defined from the undefined?
Frames may be cognitive or psychological, linguistic or conceptual, semantic or pragmatic, theoretical or practical. They may also be elemental or structural, literal or metaphorical, contemporary or historical, vertical or horizontal, cross-sectional or longitudinal.
Frames may also be visual, textual, conversational, literary, theatrical, cinematic, social, or cultural.
Frames may be cognitive or psychological, linguistic or conceptual, semantic or pragmatic, theoretical or practical. They may also be elemental or structural, literal or metaphorical, contemporary or historical, vertical or horizontal, cross-sectional or longitudinal.
Frames may also be visual, textual, conversational, literary, theatrical, cinematic, social, or cultural.
When we frame something we may be presenting a particular way of looking at it or delineating a particular perspective from which it may be viewed. We may also be defining the terms in which it may be examined, or describing a particular context in which it may take on certain implications or meanings.
A frame of mind may be a particular attitude or viewpoint, a particular mood, or a particular way of looking at the world that influences a person’s behavior.
A frame of mind may be a particular attitude or viewpoint, a particular mood, or a particular way of looking at the world that influences a person’s behavior.
A frame of reference may be “a set of criteria in relation to which judgments can be made” or “a system
of geometric axes in relation to which measurements of size, position, or
motion can be made.”8
A frame of reference may also be ”any set of lines, directions, planes, etc., such as the coordinate
axes, relative to which the position of a point in space can be described.”9
A picture frame (e.g. for a drawing,
painting, photo, or diploma) may be square, rectangular,
circular, or oval. It may be equiangular or non-equiangular, equilateral
or non-equilateral, wooden or metal, flat or raised, sculpted or unsculpted, chiseled
or unchiseled, carved or uncarved, painted or unpainted, plain or ornamented
(decorated).
W.H. Bailey (2002) describes the
many functions of painting frames, and says that
“Of all the functions of a frame, the
most significant is that of mediator between the viewer and the painting, both
physically and aesthetically. On the practical side, an effective frame
reconciles the world of the viewer to the world of the painting in both form
and scale…As mediator, the frame must succeed in a challenging twofold role: it
must invite us into the painting and prevent us from escaping its bounds once
inside. The design must effect a transition from the existing physical
location, usually a wall in a room or gallery, into the illusionistic realm of
the painting. This should occur graciously and imperceptibly. The frame should
also prepare the eye and mind of the viewer to accept and embrace the domain of
the painting on its own terms.”10
Choosing the right frame for
something (e.g. for a drawing, painting, concept, argument, or set of arguments) may be a matter of the frame’s design, configuration, dimensions, ease of application, and
ability to complement, enhance, and provide an appropriate setting
for its contents.
Frames (of meaning, reference, or
representation) may be like windows to the world. To select a particular frame
may be to select a particular way of looking at the world. To select a different frame may be to select a different way of looking at the world.
When we frame a problem we may also
be defining its limits or dimensions. An inadequate, unsuitable, or ill-fitting
frame may not enable us to properly assess a problem’s complexities or fully
appreciate and understand them.
Cognitive framing provides us with a
way of analyzing and evaluating things.
When we frame something, we may provide ourselves with a way of approaching,
interacting with, and responding to it.
Stating premises or assumptions may
be a way of framing statements, arguments, and conclusions.
Conceptual framing
may also enable us to frame (define, investigate, and elaborate)
concepts in terms of other concepts.
We may also flip through, rearrange, reorder, change, and
reprioritize frames.
A “time frame” may be a given period
or duration of time, especially with respect to some action or project.11
Thus, to ask “What time frame do you have in mind?” may be to ask “When or how
long do you have in mind?” or “From what time to what time?” A possible answer
could be “From 3 to 6 p.m.” or “Between this Tuesday and next Thursday,” or
“Sometime before next month,” or “From August 1st until September 30th.”
Many things (such as political
agendas, economic policies, social obligations, financial investment risks, and medical
treatment options) may be framed positively or negatively, depending on whether
the objective is to get people to accept or reject them.
To frame a debate may be to
determine what the debate will be about, what its direction will be, what issues will be discussed, what it will attempt to resolve, and
what the ground rules for engagement will be.
Relations between frames may include: sameness, similarity, difference, congruity, incongruity, commensurability, incommensurability, interchangeability, succession, superimposition, overlap, agreement, conflict, competition, and opposition.
When someone is “framed” for some
offense, they may be falsely accused, falsely implicated, or
unfairly “set up” by false witnesses, false testimony, false evidence, or corrupt
police, prosecutorial, or judicial procedures.
Frames may enclose fields of meaning and representation. They may also enclose fields of interest, concern,
attention, perception, memory, and experience. They may also shut out or exclude
extraneous domains or fields. They may also intersect with or be included (as
subframes) within other frames.
Gail T. Fairhurst, professor of communication at the University of Cincinnati, and Robert A. Sarr, business
executive, consultant, and investment manager, explain (1996) that
“Just like a photographer, when we
select a frame for a subject, we choose which aspect or portion of the subject
we will focus on and which we will exclude. When we choose to highlight some
aspect of our subject over others, we make it more noticeable, more meaningful,
and more memorable to others. Our framing adds color or accentuates the subject
in unique ways. For this reason, frames determine whether people notice
problems, how they understand and remember problems, and how they evaluate and
act upon them (Entman, 1993).
Frames exert their power not only
through what they highlight, but also through what they leave out. In framing,
when we create a bias towards one interpretation of our subject, we exclude
other aspects, including those that may produce opposite or alternative
interpretations.”12
Michael X. Delli Carpini (2005), professor
of communication at the University of Pennsylvania, examines the question of
what role the news media should play in the framing process. He asks, “From
whose perspective should the news be framed?”13 He concludes that the
news media may have the responsibility to (1) give the public a greater role in
setting the (political, social, and cultural) agenda, (2) cover issues and
events in a way that is meaningful and useful to the general public, (3) give
the public a greater voice in the ongoing conversation about public affairs,
and (4) see the media “as a member of the community in which it operates,
responsible not only for identifying problems, but also for helping find
solutions to these problems.”14
Marie Maclean (1991), a research fellow
in the Department of French at Monash University who was an English-language translator of the work of French philosopher Gérard Genette, explains that the verbal
frame of any spoken or written text is its “paratext,” a concept developed by
Genette to describe the threshold or “undecided zone” between the inside and
outside of a text, the transactional zone between speaker and listener, between
author and reader. Paratexts may include the cover of a book, its title page,
its table of contents, its preface, chapter titles, appendix, and index. They
may also include recommendations on the cover of a book that introduce the text
to the reader. Thus, they act as frames for, or thresholds of, interpretation
that may guide the reader’s approach to the text. They may also define, highlight,
and contrast with the text.
FOOTNOTES
1Concise
Oxford English Dictionary, edited by Angus Stevenson and Maurice Waite
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 563.
2Erving Goffman, Frame Analysis:
An Essay on the Organization of Experience (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1974), pp. 10-11.
3Ibid., p. 345.
4Charles J. Fillmore, “Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language,” in Annals o the New York Academy of Sciences,
Vol. 280, Issue 1, October 1976, p. 20.
5Ibid., p. 23.
6Robert M. Entman, “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured
paradigm,” in Journal of Communication
(Volume 43, Issue 4, December 1, 1993), p. 52.
7George Lakoff, Don’t Think of an
Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate: The Essential Guide for
Progressives (White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing,
2004), p. xv.
8Concise Oxford
English Dictionary, edited by Angus Stevenson and Maurice Waite (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 563.
9Collins
Web-linked Dictionary of Mathematics, by E.J. Borowski and J.M. Borwein
(Glasgow: HarperCollins, 2002), p. 221.
10W.H. Bailey, Defining Edges: A
New Look at Picture Frames (New York: Harry N. Adams, Inc. 2002), pp. 16-17.
11Merriam-Webster
Dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2018), online at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/time%20frame.
12Gail T. Fairhurst and Robert A. Sarr, The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996), p. 4.
13Michael X. Delli Carpini, “News From Somewhere: Journalism Frames and
the Debate over “Public Journalism,” in Framing
American Politics, edited by Karen Callaghan and Frauke Schnell (Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005), p. 11.
14Ibid., p. 14.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Marie Maclean, “Pretexts and Paratexts: The Art of the
Peripheral,” in New Literary History,
Vol. 22, No 2, 1991, pp. 273-279.
Gérard Genette, “Introduction to the Paratext,” translated by Marie
Maclean, in New Literary History, Vol.
22, No. 2, 1991, pp. 261-272.
