Textus. English Studies in Italy

Dimensions of framing: representation, cognition, interaction 

Editors: Paola Catenaccio (Università degli Studi di Milano), Giuliana Garzone (Università IULM, Milano),  Martin Reisigl (Universität Wien) 

This issue of Textus intends to offer a multi-faceted approach to the linguistic, semiotic, critical and  cognitive notion of frame, one of the most influential concepts in linguistics. It is meant to investigate and  organize this theoretical construct by means of discussing and applying today’s most productive critical  models of framing and their use as key interpretive tools in discourse analysis. 

The concept of framing has been the object of countless articulations over time. First introduced by  Burke (as a system of meaning, 1937), then developed by Bateson (as a set of keys to interpret reality,  1955/1972) and Goffman (as schemata of interpretation, 1974), the idea of frame as an interpretive model – precisely for its adaptability and expandability – has been utilized to examine how language and textuality  structure knowledge, representation and behaviour.  

In terms of cognition, frames guide information processing by providing cognitive scaffoldings, or  pre-existing data structures stored in our memory, against which to evaluate new data. The notion of frame has been used and re-elaborated by various authors, some of whom maintained the original denomination (e.g. Minsky 1975; Fillmore 1988), while others used various labels, e.g. “schema” or “schemata” (e.g.  Goffman 1974; ; cf. also Rumelhart 1980), “scripts” (Schank 1975; Schank/Abelson 1977), or “units” (Bobrow/Winograd 1977), amongst others. 

In relation to discourse, frames have been defined as resources by which “to select some aspects of a  perceived reality and make them 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 described” (Entman 1993: 52). Furthermore frames also play a role in interaction, being often used  by participants to negotiate not only meanings but also identities, roles and communicative purposes in  speech events. In this sense, framing defines “what is going on in interaction, without which no utterance (or  movement or gesture) could be interpreted” (Tannen/Wallat 1987: 206). 

Thanks to its heuristic effectiveness, framing has been used as an analytical lens in a variety of  theoretical and methodological approaches and fields, ranging from cognitive linguistics and discourse  analysis to news and multimedia discourse studies, from translation and interpreting studies to political  communication studies, from epistemology and psychology to artificial intelligence. 

We invite submissions providing critical insights into how framing works in processing empirical  reality, into how it can be used to codify phenomena into meanings and (conversely) to detect and interpret  meanings when processing texts, codes and modes. The issue aims to be a casebook about frames and framing, where each single contribution, besides being self-standing in exploring framing as a theoretical  notion and as a key analytical construct, also contributes to outlining an overall picture of framing as a  heuristic tool. 

Submissions are expected to tackle complementary facets of framing as a key meaning-making system  within specific linguistic, discursive and communicative dimensions, by analysing exemplary samples of  discourse in multiple domains and in diversified genres and modes. Possible areas for the investigation of  framing and framing strategies include, among other things, the following ones: 

∙ Media discourse 

∙ Political discourse 

∙ Economic discourse 

∙ Scientific discourse 

∙ Intercultural communication 

∙ Multimodal discourse 

∙ Lingua Franca interactions

∙ Institutional / organizational discourse 

∙ Translation and interpreting 

∙ Framing strategies, metaphor and argumentation 

Important dates 

Abstract submission deadline: 31 March 2022 

Notification of acceptance: 15 April 2022 

Preliminary papers to the editors: 15 July 2022 

Essential references 

Bartlett F. 1930. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind, New York: Ballantine Books 

Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City,  NY: Anchor Books 

Bobrow D. /Collins A. 1975. Representations and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Longman Bobrow D.G. / Winograd T. 1977. “An overview of KRL, a Knowledge Representation Language”. Cognitive Science 1/1: 3–46 Busse, D. 2012. Frame-Semantik. Ein Kompendium. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. 

Burke, K. 1937. Attitudes Toward History. Berkeley: University of California Press 

Charteris-Black, J. 2019. Metaphors of Brexit: No Cherries on the Cake. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 

Chilton, P. 2014. Language, Space and Mind. The Conceptual Geometry of Linguistic Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University  Press 

Coupland N. 2012. “Bilingualism on display: The framing of Welsh and English in Welsh public spaces”, Language in Society 41:  1–27 

Druckman J.N. 2001. “The implications of framing effects for citizen competence”. Political Behavior 23: 225–256 Dunbar R. /Garud R. / Raghuram S. 1996. “A frame for deframing in strategic analysis”. Journal of Management Inquiry 5: 23–34 Entman, R. 1993. “Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43/4: 51–8 Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’”. In Axmaker J. / Singmaster H. (eds): 35-55. Berkeley  

Linguistic Society 14: General Session and Parasession on Grammaricalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society Goffman, E. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row Herrera-Soler H. / White, M. (eds). 2012. Metaphor and Mills. Figurative Language in Business and Economics. Berlin/ Boston:  Mouton de Gruyter 

Kuypers Jim A. / Cooper S. D. 2005. “A comparative framing analysis of embedded and behind-the-lines reporting on the 2003 Iraq  War”. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 6/1: 1–10 

Lakoff, G. / Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press 

Lim J./ Jones L. 2010. “A baseline summary of framing research in public relations from 1990 to 2009”. Public Relations  Review 36/3: 292–297 

Minsky, M. 1975. “A framework for representing knowledge.” In Winston P. (ed): 201–310. Knowledge and Cognition. Hillsdale:  Lawrence Erlbaum 

Pan, Z. / Kosicki G.M. 1993. “Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse.” Political Communication 10: 55–75 Rumelhart D.E. 1980. Schemata: The basic building blocks of cognition. In Spiro R. / Bruce B. / Brewer B. (eds.): 33–58.  Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum 

Schank R.C. 1975. “The Structure of Episodes in Memory”. In Bobrow D. / Collins A. (eds.): 3–46. Representation and  Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science. New York: Academic Press 

Schank R. C. / Abelson R. P. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: an inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale,  NJ: Erlbaum 

Semino E. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 

Tannen D. / Wallat C. 1987. “Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: examples from a medical  examination/interview.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50/2: 205–216 

Zeng, W. 2020. “Reframing News by Different Agencies. A Case Study of Translations of News on the US-China Trade Dispute”.  Babel 66/4-5: 847–866 

Ziem, A. 2014. Frames of understanding in Text and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins