I take it from his description that in the group analyzing, discussing,
making sense of the ballistics phenomenon, _no one_ yet has an
adequate frame for talking about the phenomenon, and a collective
frame is being built, is emerging. This is quite different from cases
where one or more frames are in use and seem adequate to the users.
But it is still subject to the question of just in what sense the
emerging frame is 'collective'. Can we be sure it is really the same
frame for all participants at the 'end'? What sorts of residual
differences may remain? How can we know this? What sort of definition
of the frames is needed to answer such questions? At the least, I
would want to have a fairly complete semantic-connectivity model
for the terms in use as used by each participant (the 'thematic
pattens' or formations of _Talking Science_ and my later work),
and an extension of this to include the possibly different ways
the semantics/thematics might be applied to the 'same' instance
of the phenomenon.
Sometimes, I think, we mistake the process of inter-articulation
among different frames for the process of building a shared
frame. I want to know how much of each of these is taking place
in a particular data set. JAY.
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU