Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 27:2 (2020) ► pp.364–386

Frameshifting

Creative impoliteness in conflict communication

| Saginaw Valley State University

The article discusses the cognitive-linguistic technique of frameshifting and its potential for deliberate impoliteness in antagonistic politically charged discourse. Frameshifting involves the construction of utterances in such a way that their comprehension involves two stages: the reader is first led to invoke one mental frame and then is forced to discard it and to invoke a different frame, with the final message being deliberately insulting. The article demonstrates that frameshifting, which has been studied predominantly in humorous discourse, can also be used in aggressive communication to intensify the insulting potential of utterances and to simultaneously increase prominence and memorability of the message. The article argues that the effects of impoliteness can depend on the manner of expression, and if the speaker chooses a particularly innovative and conspicuously intentional means of expression, the intent to insult comes to the forefront, the insulting meaning is amplified, and the resulting negative message is strengthened.

Keywords: deliberate impoliteness, language aggression, linguistic creativity, frame semantics, frameshifting, Ukrainian crisis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Deliberate impoliteness
    • 1.2Cognitive effects of linguistic creativity
    • 1.3Frameshifting
    • 1.4Computer-mediated communication and impoliteness
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Discussion
    • 3.1Frameshifting in impolite one-line jokes
    • 3.2Homonymy and frameshifting
    • 3.3“Positive-to-negative” frameshifting
    • 3.4“Negative-to-negative” frameshifting
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 October 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19013.kno
References

References

Attardo, Salvatore & Victor Raskin
1991 Script theory revis(it)ed: Joke similarity and joke representation model. Humor:International Journal of Humor Research 4(3–4). 293–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilaniuk, Laada
2005 Contested tongues: Language politics and cultural correction in Ukraine. Ithaka, London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia, Nuria Lorenzo-Dus & Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich
2012 Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 171. 501–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bousfield, Derek
2007 Beginnings, middles and ends: A biopsy of the dynamics of impolite exchanges. Journal of Pragmatics 391. 2185–2216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Impoliteness in interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Face in conflict. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 11. 37–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, Geert & Seana Coulson
2010 Processing deliberate ambiguity in newspaper headlines: Doublegrounding. Discourse Processes 47(3). 212–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana
2001 Semantic leaps: Frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Frame-shifting and frame semantics: Joke comprehension on the space structuring model. In Geert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts & Tony Veale (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research, 167–190. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, Seana, Thomas P. Urbach & Marta Kutas
2006 Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 19(3). 229–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan
1996 Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25(3). 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The weakest Link. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 1(1). 35–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 Politeness and impoliteness. In Karin Aijmer & Gisle Andersen (eds.), Pragmatics of society, 5th edn., 393–438. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Eric J.
2013 Impoliteness in computer mediated communication [Ph.D. dissertation]. Retrieved from [URL]
Dynel, Marta
2013 Impoliteness as disaffiliative humour in film talk. In Marta Dynel (ed.), Developments in linguistic humour theory, 105–144. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 Participation framework underlying YouTube interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 731. 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
2002 The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.
1975 An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 11. 123–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976 Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1), 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ford, Thomas E. & Mark A. Ferguson
2004 Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudiced norm theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(1). 79–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Ann Kronrod, Idit Elnatan, Noa Shuval & Adi Zur
2004 Weapons of mass distraction: Optimal innovation and pleasure ratings. Metaphor and Symbol 191. 115–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Ofer Fein, Nurit Kotler & Noa Shuval
2015 Know hope: Metaphor, optimal innovation, and pleasure. In Geert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts & Tony Veale (eds.), Cognitive linguistics and humor research, 129–146. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graham, Sage L.
2007 Disagreeing to agree: Conflict, (im)politeness and identity in a computer-mediated community. Journal of Pragmatics 391. 742–759. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
1967 Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Allen D.
1990 Introduction. In Allen D. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hardaker, Claire
2010 Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 6(2). 215–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2010 When is an email really offensive? Argumentativity and variability in evaluations of impoliteness. Journal of Politeness Research 61. 7–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan C.
1999 Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, Susan, Kirk Job-Sluder, Rebecca Scheckler & Sasha Barab
2002 Searching for safety online: Managing “trolling” in a feminist forum. Information Society 18(5). 371–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hutchens, Myiah J., Vincent J. Cicchirillo & Jay D. Hmielowski
2015 How could you think that?!?!: Understanding intentions to engage in political flaming. New Media & Society 17(8). 1201–1219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kakavá, Christina
2001 Discourse and conflict. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi E. Hamilton (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 650–670. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred
2008 Impoliteness and emotional arguments. Journal of Politeness Research. Language, Behaviour, Culture 4(2). 243–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuiper, Nicholas A., Melissa Grimshaw, Catherine Leite & Gillian Kirsh
2004 Humor is not always the best medicine: Specific components of sense of humor and psychological well-being. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research 171. 135–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria
2009 “You’re barking mad, I’m out”: Impoliteness and broadcast talk. Journal of Politeness Research 5(2). 159–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, Nuria, Pilar Garcés-Conejos Blitvich & Patricia Bou-Franch
2011 On-line polylogues and impoliteness: The case of postings sent in response to the Obama Reggaeton YouTube video. Journal of Pragmatics 431. 2578–2593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel
2004 On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics 361. 115–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marwick, Alice & Danah Boyd
2011 “I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately”: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society 13(1). 114–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mateo, José & Francisco Yus
2013 Towards a cross-cultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 1(1). 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raskin, Victor
1987 Linguistic heuristics of humor: A script-based semantic approach. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1987(65). 11–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, David
2005 Frame-shifting in humor and irony. Metaphor and Symbol 20(4). 275–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sakwa, Richard
2015 Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the borderlands. London: IB Tauris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, Helen
2005 (Im)Politeness, face and perceptions of rapport: Unpackaging their bases and interrelationships. Journal of Politeness Research 1(1). 95–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sturt, Patrick
2007 Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition 105(2). 477–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1993 The relativity of linguistic strategies: Rethinking power and solidarity in gender and dominance. In Deborah Tanen (ed.), Gender and conversational interaction, 165–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2008 Toward a unified theory of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness. In Derek Bousfield & Miriam A. Locher (eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice, 45–74. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vaid, Jyotsna
2014 ‘Absence makes the heart grow fonder, but also makes the eye wander’: Optimal innovations in proverb rejoinders. In Proceedings of the international conference on empirical aesthetics. New York, NY: Hunter College.Google Scholar
Walters, Mark A.
2013 Conceptualizing “hostility” for hate crime law: Minding “the Minutiae” when interpreting Section 28(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 34(1). 47–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Andrew
2014 Ukraine crisis: What it means for the West. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Wu, Zhihui
2013 The laughter-eliciting mechanism of humor. English Linguistics Research 2(1). 52–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zaliznyak, J.
2014 The new media of EuroMaidan: Online instruments to defend democracy in Ukraine. Open Europe: Cultural Dialogue Across Borders, 1791.Google Scholar