Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse (review)

Titus Ensink and Christoph Sauer’s collection seems to have two apparently contradictory aims: an integration of the analytical notions of ‘frame’ and ‘perspective’ into a coherent approach to discourse and an exemplification of the value of each in concrete analyses. The first of these aims is clearly seen in the editors’ introductory text (1–21), where they brilliantly survey the different ways in which both notions are understood and applied, as well as proposing a sample analysis of their own. The relatedness of frame and perspective is overtly emphasized several times. The second aim is manifested in the organization of the volume: the next four articles concern framing, while the remaining three, perspectivizing.

The volume has rightly been published in a series that looks ‘beyond’ pragmatics, or at least beyond linguistic pragmatics. This is because the first framing paper, by Theo van Leeuwen (23–61), discusses several aspects of the structure of mostly visual composition, such as computer program interfaces, magazine and newspaper front pages, screen organization of TV programs, or the presentation of information on fruit juice packs. The remaining articles, however, deal with discourse in the linguistic sense. Next in line are Titus Ensink’s (63–90) observations on what may happen when discourse involves either shifts between frames or multiple embedding of frames. Geert Jacobs (91–107), by looking at the language of press releases, suggests how one can construe and model interactions between participants in linguistic exchanges. Finally, Janet Cowper (109–45) applies the notion of ‘footing’ (i.e. a participant’s ‘stance’ or ‘projected self’ relative to the message they convey; 113) to a systematic study of two types of discourse: a television inteview with a politician and a satirical sketch imitating such an interview.

The notion of footing (cf. its simplified definition above) allows for a smooth transition to the three articles on perspectivization. In the first of these, Ursula Bredel (147–70) analyzes everyday discourse that exhibits three types of polyphonic constructions (utterances invoking more than one speaker-voice). Then, Louise Cornelis (171–89) looks at the notion of agentivity and its role in manifesting the journalist’s perspective in press reports of soccer matches. The volume ends with Ines-A. Busch-Lauer’s (191–214) comparison of letters to the editor in English and German medical journals and the perspectives assumed by the authors of these letters.

Altogether, the picture that emerges from the eight contributions to the volume is that framing and perspectivizing are prevalent in discourse, that they are related though not equivalent phenomena, and that the notions of frame and perspective are valid analytical constructs. Those who wish to use them in their own analyses will value the book for its lucid presentation of the theoretical background to these notions, as well as for the examples of their application to specific data.