C-CS

Framing & the Paradigmatic Axis of a Discourse

ABSTRACT

James Paul Gee's conception of scaffolding offers a way of understanding how framing works. I interpret his conception of scaffolding in terms of the distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic planes of discourse. When a prior frame in a sequence contextualizes a subsequent frame, we can speak of this as "paradigmatic framing." On the other hand, when the subsequent frame contextualizes the prior frame, we can speak of this as syntagmatic framing. In a discourse, the frame structures can vary according to the framing direction.

scaffolding

In his An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, James Paul Gee writes:
If I had to single out a primary function of human language, it would be not one, but the following two: to scaffold the performance of social activities (whether work or both) and to scaffold human affiliation within cultures and social groups and institutions.

These two functions are connected. Cultures, social groups, and institutions shape social activities: there are no activities like "water-cooler gossip sessions" or "corridor politics" without an institution whose water cooler, social relations, corridors, and politics are the sites of and rationale for these activities. At the same time though, cultures, social groups, and institutions get produced, reproduced, and transformed through human activities. There is no institution unless it is enacted and reenacted moment-by-moment in activities like water-cooler gossip sessions, corridor politics, meetings, and numerous other sorts of social interactions, all of which partly (but only partly) have a life all of their own apart from larger cultural and institutional forces. (Gee, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, 2002, 1).

Scaffolding is not an important term in Gee's book, but it is a term that is particularly useful. In analyzing a passage from an historical text, he notes that the author deploys "the contextual scaffolding needed to frame ... his main points." In other words, the words are are foregrounded in readers' attention are framed by the previous words now in the background of the readers' attention. Gee is calling our attention to the way "language-in-use" frames "the main point" for readers. Gee is a Professor of Reading at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is particularly sensitive to the ways readers derive meaning from readings.

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic planes of discourse

I understand scaffolding in semiotic terms where there is a long-standing distinction between the syntagmatic axis and the paradigmatic axis of language. The paradigmatic axis refers to the sequence of words in a discourse. It is intersected by a paradigmatic axis which refers to the words preceding the one being read. What is remembered about the preceding discourse influences the way one reads the discourse at any point in its sequence.

The concepts mentioned above allow me to use a “strategy” (derived from narratological analyses of fiction) which corresponds to Gee’s notion of “scaffolding.” Gee’s metaphor might seem to suggest that discourse is a “fixed” structure. We need to keep in mind that scaffolding is moved as the work proceeds. Rather than construing a text as a relatively static linear sequence of sentences, it can be construed as a dynamic interaction between the words on its syntagmatic axis (the sequence of words) with the words that have occurred earlier in the text which form its paradigmatic axis. For example, if we hear or read the sentence

(2). Jill shot Jack when they reached the top of the hill.

Our understanding of it would differ if in one case this sentence were preceded by the sentence

(1a). Jack, a Russian spy, knew he had to eliminate the American agent Jill if his mission was to succeed.

Or in another case, it was preceded by the sentence

(1b) Jill realized that Jack knew about her love affair with John and would never divorce her out of spite.

Cognitive linguists following Fillmore’s delineation of the concept of a “frame,” would remind us that the conventions of the “spy” genre evoked in sentence (1a) frame sentence (2) and add the audience expectation that, at least in cold war novel or films, Russian and American secret agents are antagonists and frequently try to “eliminate” each other. And further that, in American films, the American agent usually kills the Russian agent. In sentence (1b), the conventions of the “suspense” film frame sentence (2) since in that genre it is not uncommon that an unfaithful spouse tries to murder her husband because he will not divorce her out of spite. We can consider the paradigmatic axis as the “frame” for subsequent sentences on the syntagmatic axis. This use of the concept of “frame” is derived from Tannen’s use of the term influenced by Fillmore.

paradigmatic framing

Schematically where each number represents a sentence, we can use the following abstract diagram to show the “dynamic” scaffolding that occurs is listening or reading a text:

									1	p a r a d i g m a t i c axis
								1	2
							1	2	3
						1	2	3	4
					1	2	3	4	5
				1	2	3	4	5	6
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7
		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
s y n t a g m a t i c a x i s

In this context, the position a figure takes gives us one perspective on subsequent events (sentences) that also frames them. In (1a) Jack’s position toward Jill is conveyed by the implication that he is a Russian spy, whereas in (1b), Jill’s position toward Jack is conveyed to us by the implication that she was married to Jack and had an affair with John.

syntagmatic framing

On the other hand, the framing can have the opposite directional effect where the subsequent frame contextualizes the prior frame. For example:

01 Jack was very worried about Jill

02 She had not come home last night.

03 He had called her apartment several times this morning but there was no answer.

04 He was considering driving by her apartment to see if any lights were on.

05 At that moment, the phone rang.

06 It was Harry, Jill’s boyfriend.

07 “Has Jill said anything to you about her sister, Joan?.” Harry asked.

08 “Only that she was upset with her husband’s gambling,” Jack replied.

09 “I’m going over to her apartment,” Harry said. “She may have been up late and too deeply asleep to hear the phone.”

10 “Ok, I’ll meet you there,” Jack said and hung up.

Each subsequent sentence reframes the situation implied in the initial sentence.

discursive frame structures

The various discourse structures identified in "discourse analysis,"

contain a framing direction.

Questions are typically paradigmatic (the question identifies the answer and thus usually precedes it.)
Comparisons typically involve a "standard" and a "target." The target is matched against the target. Consequently, the delineation of the standard usually precedes the examination of the target.
Narratives are typically chronological and therefore earlier events usually precede later events.

However, many discursive structures can be framed either paradigmatically or syntagmatically.

Plots can be told in chronological order. But many plots reveal events that chronologically occur later in time and then reveal events that occurred before the one first revealed. For example, murder mysteries often begin with the murder and then introduce events that occurred before it happened.
Configurations tend to be understood paradigmatically but they may be received syntagmatically
Descriptions can be related in either direction. There is usually a starting point but descriptions often return to points mentioned mealier.
Arguments can be arranged in a logical order: evidence > [warranting assumption] > conclusion but are often given in other sequences: claim > warrant > evidence > conclusion. In the second example, the claim is identical to the conclusion and is repeated at the end of the sequence. The assumptions are laid out before the evidence is given.

Paradigmatic framing is the basis of frame analysis.

jjs