Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Frame Negotiation and Policy Discourse: Markets, local knowledge and centralized justice

235

Published on

Presentation from Language, Cognition, Mind 2008. (Reupload after accidental delete)

Presentation from Language, Cognition, Mind 2008. (Reupload after accidental delete)

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
235
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • My assumptions about language are grounded in the notions of cognitive and construction grammar (Lakoff, Langacker, Goldberg, Croft) using the blending as a model for unification limits (Fauconnier, Turner).
  • Easy to recognize difference, easy to reproduce (paper giving – look at speakers paraphrasing)Again, this is very undemanding processually because of the massively parallel pattern-based recognition
  • Very common. The metaphor part is followed by a paragraph long-hedgeThe consequence is not clear: this one ends up suggesting Total Quality Management from Business
  • Very common. The metaphor part is followed by a paragraph long-hedgeThe consequence is not clear: this one ends up suggesting Total Quality Management from Business
  • Transcript

    • 1. Markets, Local knowledge and Centralized Justice: Frame Negotiation in Educational Policy Discourse Dominik Lukeš University of East Anglia http://dominiklukes.net LCM 2008
    • 2. Overview • Role of frames as constructions in discourse • Role of negotiation in the frame inventory • Two examples of negotiation frame negotiation in educational discourse • Towards a new linguistics for a new approach to (policy) discourse (the top-down articulation and negotiated inventory convergence approach) • Open questions
    • 3. Assumptions about language • Language is a structured (but not layered) inventory of linguistic units (constructions) • Linguistic units are pairings of meaning and form • The form of a linguistic unit can be a single feature or an extended series of texts • The meaning of a linguistic unit is structured in frames (cognitive models) • Both form and meaning can be very schematic or very rich • The online processing of language (production and perception) is governed by the principles of conceptual integration • Any unit in the inventory can be brought up to conscious scrutiny and its integrative parameters can be negotiated • No two speakers have access to inventories with absolutely identical content and the structuring of the content
    • 4. Frames as constructions in discourse • Frames need to be viewed as semantic poles of constructions and therefore we always need to ask what is their formal pole • Conversely, building blocks of discourse need to be treated as formal poles of constructions and their semantic poles need to be sought • Ignoring the constructional nature of framing in discourse can lead to unwarranted claims about the conceptual content of texts
    • 5. Examples of constructional blending You know, when you look at it, this one sort of looks like it might be X and that one sort of looks like it might be Y. You know, just like what Langacker was talking about in that paper, you know, that paper he wrote with those funny drawings. At first glance the former appears to belong to X whereas the latter has the markings of Y reminiscent of Langacker’s (1999) distinctive visual representations of constructional form. Formal blends: lexical choice, cohesion, elegant variation, intertextuality, ostension and deixis substitution Semantic blends: profiling of date, profiling of topic, backgrounding of attentional negotiation (‘you know’, ‘funny’)
    • 6. Frames as constructions (Marketplace Example): Metaphor negotiation construction(s) Metaphor negotiation • Meaning – folk theory of analogy – folk theory of categorization – folk theory of truth – folk theory of logical inference • Form – exegesis – postulations of domain and investigation of mapping – attribution of truth or adequacy – limits of aptness Education as a marketplace • Meaning – “education is like a market-place” – this is either true or not true – things follow from the above – elements of the domain of education have correspondences in the domain of business – any one disanalogy invalidates any correspondence • Form – X claims Y is like Z – y in Y is (not) z in Z ergo X is right/wrong – partial correspondence is enough to go on
    • 7. Example 1 Most examples are too long to present (e.g. Henig 1994 – an entire volume) "A college is a complex mechanism that is responsible for transforming a variety of inputs of examples, students' time, teachers' time, consumable materials, equipment, buildings, into knowledge products usually in the forms of qualified people and intellectual property. The latter is the research component of knowledge. These products, in their turn, generate goods and services for society. The transformation is highly value added, although the means of which the mechanism carries out the transformation process is often obscure. The way in which people learn and develop ideas is closely individualistic and not easily understood. It is based largely on human interactions and relationships. The means used for measuring and manipulating aspects of the transformation have proved historically taxing and interference in the teaching traditions has caused resentment. In particular, the measurement of quality is an emotive issue." (Ashworth, Allan, and Roger C. Harvey. 1993. Assessing Quality in Further and Higher Education. London; Bristol, Penn.: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 4)
    • 8. Example 2 "Veblen (1918) was right when he said that the chief function of grading systems was not educational, but rather to help the Tycoons of Erudition who ran the universities provide the kind of quantified production controls the Captains of Solvency who sat on their governing boards were accustomed to." (Becker, Geer, and Hughes. 1968. Making the Grade: The Academic Side of College Life. New York,: Wiley.) "*R. M. Miller’s view is that+ metaphors have all the advantage over explicit language as does theft over honest toil." (Petrie, H. G. 1979. Metaphor and Learning In Metaphor and Thought, ed. Ortony, Andrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. about R. M. Miller 1976, The dubious case for metaphors in educational writing, Educational Theory, 26, 174-181)
    • 9. Central vs. local control folk theories ‘Central is better’ • Parents need to be trained in how to deal with their children • Teachers need to be taught how to recognize and respond to their students’ needs • Only centrality can insure equality • Only centrality can protect against the backwardness of unenlightened locals Local is better • Parents know their children best • Teachers know what’s best for their individual students • Only locality can insure democracy and fairness • Only local control can protect the needs of communities over high- handed, theory-laden central intervention
    • 10. Underlying image schemas and scenarios • Proximity schema: closer makes it possible to understand something better; closer makes it more difficult to see context • Information schema: having information makes it possible to make correct decisions (local or central) • Outsider scenario: stranger (or estranged) comes to present people with local knowledge (wisdom) with (book-learned) inappropriate knowledge • Educator scenario: educated stranger saves local people with his/her knowledge
    • 11. Negotiating schemas and scenarios • Reconciliation scenario: outsider comes in and proves central knowledge useful while learning about the reality of local life • Change of perspective schema: moving away and closer again to an object makes it possible to see more sides
    • 12. Frames as constructions (Governance Example): Two frames Frame negotiation construction (schematic) • Meaning – central governance scenario – local governance scenario • Form – giving of examples – statement of obviousness – myth busting Who’s right? [construction] (rich) • Meaning – central control is necessary for the protection of individuals’ rights • Form – dramatic narrative – justificatory statement – morale through metaphor
    • 13. Storytelling as blending • The above schemas are frequently instantiated through stories: – 24 – Advancement of Learning – Robinson Crusoe
    • 14. Additional schemas and scenarios • Central government exerts control through control of resources; • Resources should be controlled by those who use them and produce them
    • 15. Conclusion • In a policy debate (private or public), only a limited inventory of discursive units is available • This inventory is limited both in its form and content by the constructional integrative constraints of its units • The limits of the inventory and the blending parameters in operation can and are always negotiated (both explicitly and implicitly)
    • 16. Questions • What does textual evidence mean? • What use is understanding policy discourse to policy makers? • Are there any elements of discourse that cannot be negotiated? • Are there limiting factors on frame negotiation?
    • 17. Dangers • This kind of analysis brings only little new methodologically when compared with traditional modes of discourse description – other than a justificatory framework • Totality of blending/constructional approach makes it possible that other important factors are being overlooked • Naming of frames may diminish the independent agency and inherent validity of texts
    • 18. http://dominiklukes.net I keep a blog at http://hermeneuticheretic.net

    ×