Following up on Bill a bit, framing seems to work better at some times
than at others. In the 60s the liberal end of the American political
spectrum pretty much owned the framing, at least till Nixon came along
with "law and order." I don't remember anyone really grabbing framing
power in the 70s or even in the 80s. Reagan didn't so much take
advantage of framing as he did of setting an optimistic tone. Framing
came back like a storm front in the 90s, with the rise of the
conservative end of the spectrum, and conservative Republicans really
owned framing from 94 through about the first six Bush years. Terms
like "tax relief," "death tax," "family values," "faith-based," "climate
change" vs. "global warming," etc. are highly successful, powerful
examples of effective framing. I don't think we've really seen a shift
in who owns the framing yet. The Republicans no longer do, clearly, but
the Democrats haven't grabbed it yet. I think doing so takes a bit
longer.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C
Sent: 2008-02-13 17:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Grammar and frames (was: Grammar defines the candidates.)
Gregg:
I actually didn't mean to sound as if I was saying Obama doesn't write
well - I was attempting that rather difficult trick of talking about a
political issue as if I were disinterested. I'm slated to teach a
section of composition next fall, as well as a rotating-topics seminar
in which I'm focusing on political language, so I'm trying to practice
phrasing things in ways that don't make students from <insert political
position of choice here> feel excluded. I do want to tug a bit more at
the "framing" thread, though.
There's not a "grammar of hope" - English doesn't have, for example, an
optative mood. However, choice of phrasing can position something as an
assertion or an assumption, etc., and political discourse takes
advantage of this. Listeners may react differently to "X's policies had
bad results, so we should do Y" than they do to "Because X's policies
had bad results, we should do Y."
In the sense that Lakoff uses it "framing" tends to more an issue of
choice of terms - e.g. whether we call something a "tax" or a "revenue
enhancement." Orwell, of course, also dealt with this type of issue, but
in addition drew attention to the political consequences of particular
constructions, such as the use of the passive to avoid accepting
responsibility. The same information can have a very different effect on
an audience if packaged as a relative clause than it would if packaged
as a main clause. I don't want to call that framing, partly because the
term has become its own fad, partly because of the association of the
term with word choice, and partly because I don't want to imply that
it's some kind of new linguistic observation (I find myself wanting some
kind of requirement to the effect of, "Thou shalt not quote Lakoff
without quoting Orwell"). Whatever we call it, though ("canting," maybe?
But that makes it sound new), it's relevant. All candidates take
advantage of the resources that English grammar provides and deploy them
for political advantage, so regardless of one's political affiliation,
close analysis of political speeches (and books, and ads and...) is
worthwhile.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gregg Heacock
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:15 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar defines the candidates.
Dear Scott Woods, Bill Spruiell, Craig Hancock, Brad Johnson, and Bob
Yates,
I appreciate the energy and intelligence you have brought
discussing my letter. One other friend replied, James D. Williams,
author of The Teacher's Grammar Book. He rightly took issue with my
claim that grammar give us frames, "I don't believe that grammar
provides frames through which we view our lives but rather the way we
view our lives provides us with different grammars with which we can
express those views." I would like to reflect on what you all have
said. To Bill, I was not making the claim that Obama used language well
(though I believe he does). To Brad, if ghostwriters are constructing
his speeches, I am sure he reviews them. He seems to know how to engage
his audience, but that is not my point. If you watch how he addresses
people in spontaneous moments, such as when he was sitting down with
Clinton and Edwards after having to defend himself against Bill and
Hillary's mischaracterizations of his remarks and positions, he had the
grace of a Johnny Carson allowing them to deliver their spiels as Johnny
would allow comedians to do their bit. This is being in the moment. It
is not what he expresses but how he expresses.
More time should be spent replying to Scott, Bob Yates did
this, in part, by raising the question of how many people disagree
"violently on nearly every issue." It seems they do not (though some
do, and, surely, we would not expect them to vote for someone they
oppose). More to the point, Scott, are you writing about others or
about yourself when you say, "[I]t seems at best counterintuitive to
vote for a candidate with whom one disagrees violently on nearly every
issue in the hope that somehow having a place at the table will make up
for not having the kinds of policies one desires." I acknowledge that
it seems counterintuitive to do this, but this seems better than relying
on our old ways of doing things. Consider, in deciding to disempower
minorities and keep an underclass which could be paid low wages and
could be blamed for problems arising from their discontent, those who
chose to enrich themselves to the detriment of others failed to develop
these people as a market for their goods. They failed to develop them
as coparticipants in a culture where their inclusion would benefit the
whole. If our intuition is based on a brain developed through evolution
where warriors were rewarded for defeating their enemies, we might want
to question the value of this intuition when it dominates our modern
age. I am suggesting that an age where we can google and travel
extensively is one in which inclusion has more pluses than exclusion.
Hoarding what we have so that it outweighs what others possess reaps
little reward in heaven, nor does it help us much on earth. Given that
we can view our lives as the eternal present enlivened by hope or view
them as a narrative that possibly driven by fear, we have a choice. I
think, Scott, if I were to honor what I like best in your response, I
would accept the idea that we should operate in a dialetic where both
views were held. That is, at least, a world in which we might achieve
more balance.
Now, to the point that I wanted to make and, obviously, did
not make well enough to be heard. I find it exciting that the
differences between candidates can be parsed out by grammarians. In the
current debate, our voices should be heard. We have the language and
the meta-language to frame the current debate so that others can see
differences that might be clear to us but obscure to others. As we move
into territory where people's inclinations make certain options seem
counterintuitive because we have never done things in this way before,
we will need to use the power of our language and the tools of grammar
to help people participate in the negotiation of their future. If we
are all sitting at the table, we will need a new way to address each
other. I believe the tools the members of this group possess will be
invaluable. I believe our time is now.
Best regards to all,
Gregg
On Feb 12, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Craig Hancock wrote:
Bill,
Nicely said. I'd just like to add, to bring us back to Gregg's
point,
that part of what we are assessing is how well a candidate can LISTEN,
how well he/she can look past entrenched positions that have proven
polarizing in the past and offer alternatives that break those
deadlocks.
It would be interesting to apply that to the issue of public grammar,
which is deeply polarized, in deep need of new paradigms.
Craig
I'm going to attempt to focus on general rhetoric rather than any
specific candidate, past or present, if only because the thread
is one
with a strong potential for wandering off into non-list-relevant
territory. We're partly involved in trying to decide whether
someone's
ability to speak articulately and (for want of a better term)
cleverly
is an automatic plus - whether it implies a heightened ability
to govern
well. As English-teachers, we're not disinterested parties; it's
hard to
feel convincing when you're explaining to students how important
it is
to craft language articulately and carefully and at the same
time you
(and they) know that someone who hasn't been doing either is
president.
We all like to think our field is the most important thing ever,
and
enforced humility is never fun. However, I think most of us
would agree
with the answers I've dubbed in for the following two questions:
(1) Is it possible for a brilliant speaker to be lousy at
governing?
Yes.
(2) Is it possible for a bad speaker to be good at governing?
Yes.
And now we get to the "However" part. When dealing with
candidates (for
any office, or any job), we're guessing what they might do; the
truth of
the matter is only assessable after that person's term. So, the
issue is
one of evidence. If someone writes a speech that uses language
articulately and insightfully (and I think it's very important
to
distinguish this from giving that speech; I don't want to find
out I
voted for someone's ghostwriter), I can gather that the
candidate is
capable of being articulate, and of thinking carefully. I don't
know
whether or not the candidate will continue to exercise those
abilities;
I just know that s/he can do so. I also don't know whether the
candidate
can make good decisions - but being able to think carefully and
communicate well is one of the requirements of high office. A
candidate
who gives an inarticulate and platitude-ridden speech,
conversely, has
not demonstrated that s/he is incapable of articulate language
use and
careful thought - instead, we're left with a simple absence of
data
(unless it's a very important speech, in which case one has to
question
the candidate's judgment if not his/her locution).
Thus, I can view "articulateness" as a plus for a candidate -
but I have
to regard arguments such as, "X's position on Y must be wrong
because
s/he can't make a simple sentence work" as being an ad hominem
attack.
All things being equal, though (as if they ever are), given a
choice
between a candidate whose articulateness has demonstrated at
least one
or two positive qualities, and a candidate whose
inarticulateness has
not given me such evidence, I think it's rational to vote for
the
former. Unfortunately, that logic assumes that part of the
otherwise-equal status of the candidates is their positions on
substantive issues.
Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University
[opinions expressed herein are not to be taken as indicative of
the
policy of my institution or department]
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Scott Woods
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 11:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Grammar defines the candidates.
This seems to be a "rhetoric versus reality" problem. Obama does
seem to
be a clear, articulate, hopeful, inclusive, forward oriented
person and
candidate. He does seem to want to be perceived as the kind of
person
who includes everyone in the discussion, the process of crafting
policy.
Yet his history as a legislator and his pronouncement about
specific
policy choices alienate him from many voters. It is unclear to
me why
the grammar of hope with its infinite possibilities, which he
seems to
do well, is preferable to the grammar of fear with its much more
restricted set of possibilities. It may be that our grammar
ought to
match our reality, and it may be that our possibilities are not
infinite, that our choices do have consequences over which we
have no
control, and that we do have much to fear in this world from
those who
have bad ideas, even if their motives are good.
I do not see how a person such as Obama, whose policy positions
are
opposed by so many, can possibly unite the country. I do not
even know
what it means to unite the country or if that is possible or
even
desirable. There are deep divisions in philosophy and policy in
our
nation, and these will not go away. Being invited to the table,
being
consulted, being asked, while certainly desirable, are not
substitutes
for having one's ideas put into effect. Personally, I vote for
political leaders with whom I agree on the key issues that
matter the
most to me. Historically, presidential candidates who look to
the
future are more successful than those who look to the
past--Obama has
learned this lesson--but it seems at best counterintuitive to
vote for a
candidate with whom one disagrees violently on nearly every
issue in the
hope that somehow having a place at the table will make up for
not
having the kinds of policies one desires.
Scott Woods
Gregg Heacock <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Assembly Members,
I have sent the following letter in response to an
L.A. TIMES
editorial. If language shapes our thinking, grammar shapes the
framework in which our thinking takes place. We are at a
crossroads
where narrative meets process, where past, present, and future
meet the
eternal present, surrounded by infinite possibilities. I send
this to
you in hopes that it resonates with your thinking.
I look forward to reading your responses.
Sincerely,
Gregg Heacock
Dear Editor,
Jonah Goldberg in "Obama's rhetoric, American
realities"
is right to raise the issue of whether a diverse community with
a
history of individual grievances could come to the same table to
plan
together for their common future. Quoting Robert Putnam, author
of
"Bowling Alone," he says, "In the presence of diversity, we
hunker
down," and he interprets this lack of "social trust" as possibly
being a
form of "realism." As a teacher of English, I respect our
realistic
inclination to challenge other people's thinking by saying,
"Yes, but .
. . ," "So what!," and "Oh, yeah? What makes you think so? How
do you
know?" These challenges, based on logical conditions of
sufficient
grounds, relevance, and acceptability, are filters that protect
us from
intellectual pollution. The question is whether our filtration
system
gets so clogged with lack of basic trust that it never lets any
new
information get through. Do our histories and personal
grievances get
in the way of being realistic? What makes Obama such an agent
of change
is that he has found a way to move us beyond ourselves.
Grammar provides us with two frames through
which we view
our lives. Scientific, or process, paragraphs are written in
the
eternal present: We do this, then do that to bring about a
desired
result. Historic, or narrative, paragraphs are written in the
past
tense, exploring how the past affects the present and could
repeat
itself in the future. Most of us a pleased to imagine ourselves
in the
eternal present for we are never lost in the here and now and
the
possibilities before us are infinite. Our decisions, therefore,
are
guided by hope. When we think of the harm we have suffered in
the past
and contemplate how we might continue to be harmed in the
future, our
decisions in the present are guided by fear.
Because Obama is a pluralist, honoring all
groups and all
proposals and setting criteria for discerning which ideas are
presently
acceptable, he is about process, not about grievance. People
who come
to the table may carry resentments, but, relevant though they
may be to
evaluating the worth of a plan, they are subsumed by the
criteria agreed
upon by all. Obama has already shown us how this process works.
In the
pre-Nevada caucus debate, John Edwards challenged him on his
willingness
to include the nuclear power industry in negotiating our energy
policy.
He said the history of the nuclear industry showed it could not
be
trusted. Obama countered by saying that one of the conditions
for any
energy plan is that it must be safe. So far, the nuclear
industry has
not shown itself to be able to dispose nuclear waste safely.
Edwards
agreed, then, that their positions were essentially the same.
Excluding
the nuclear power industry from the table would not be fair.
Telling
the nuclear industry that it must meet certain safety criteria
is
straight-forward and honest.
Politics of the past has been based on
excluding people
and proposals from the table. Obama's way of thinking is new on
the
American and international scene. Its newness makes it hard for
us to
understand. But, it is inherent in the very language we use
that shapes
our thinking. It is what makes Obama a uniter, not a divider.
That's
why we trust him to serve as our agent of change.
Respectfully,
Gregg Heacock To join or leave this
LISTSERV list,
please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join
or leave
the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo!
Mobile. Try
it now.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62
sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20> To join or leave this LISTSERV list,
please
visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join
or leave
the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface
at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select
"Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/