There are in fact a number of theoretical approaches to the
discourse analysis of conversation which begin from a premise not
too different from Lotman's: that I can converse with you only to
the extent that we share the same frames, but that I can learn
from you only to the extent that our frames differ. It is easy
here to suppose that the informative is simply a pre-requisite
for the transformative, but their actual relations are much more
complex and interesting. (This bears on the prolepsis
discussion.)
Eugene mentions favorably David Olson's _The World on Paper_,
which I have written an article-length review of (initially for
_MCA_, but for various practical reasons transferred to _The
Communication Review_). In it I challenge some of the premises,
and some of the more sweeping claims, Olson makes, and point up
the same sort of bias towards decontextualization that Eugene
criticizes. Many points made in our old xlchc discussions find
their way into my review, and I'd be happy to email it to anyone
who is interested. (Some paper copies available too for those
with eye-unfriendly displays and limited printout capability. :)
Lotman's distinction is a useful heuristic and reminder, and has
much in common with the late modernist literary ideology of such
distinctions as that of Roland Barthes between readerly and
writerly texts: those that tell a story without unduly disturbing
the presumably shared frame of author and reader, vs. those that
force readers to do much of the work of writing sense into the
text before us (thus foregrounding the construction of frame,
putting frames at stake and at risk, and perhaps promoting change
of frame). This late modernist sensibility became post-modernism
as concern shifted from frame-as-tool for story-telling, to
story/text-as-tool for frame-play. The valorization of the
latter, however, presumes the social position, power, and support
needed to engage in it, and the insulation from pain needed
before it can become a concern, much less a priority. JAY.
PS. Bill Penuel's proposed connection to Bakhtin's distinction of
monologic vs dialogical (really heteroglossic) texts also makes
sense. A text can maintain a consistent voice or frame and so
make that frame seem to disappear, not to be 'at stake'. Or it
can orchestrate multiple voices so that frame becomes negotiated
and contingent and highly visible.
-------------
JAY LEMKE.
City University of New York.
BITNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM
INTERNET: JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU