Introduction
Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
in Literature and Other Media1
Werner Wolf
Over the past few decades it has become a received notion that there is
no human signifying act, no meaningful perception, cognition and
communication without ‘frames’ and that frames are practically everywhere. Indeed, since the mid-1970s, when Erving Goffman’s influential study Frame Analysis was published, the concept of the cognitive ‘frame’, which Goffman had taken over from Gregory Bateson
(1955/1972; cf. Goffman 1974: 7), has become widely accepted in linguistics and related areas: especially in cognition theory, psychology
and psychotherapy, artificial intelligence research, sociolinguistics and
above all in discourse analysis2. The present volume is dedicated to
the application of frame analysis to a field in which it has not found
much attention to date, namely literature and other media, and focusses on the coding of frames in ‘framing borders’ (in temporal media notably on initial framings). The following “Introduction” aims
above all at clarifying the theoretical basis of such an analysis. This
means in particular elucidating the concepts of ‘frame’, ‘framing’ and
‘framing borders’ and also giving an overview of their most important
functions in the interpretation of works of literature and other media.
1 Parts of this “Introduction”, which was not read at the conference ‘Framing in Literature and Other Media’, are revised versions of the first two chapters of Wolf
1999a.
2 For a survey see Müller 1984, esp. ch. 3, Drew/Wootton, eds. 1987, Tannen, ed.
1993, and the excellent summary of almost all previous research in the field,
MacLachlan/Reid 1994.
2
Werner Wolf
1. Frame, framing, and interpretation
As a consequence of the wide-spread and interdisciplinary use of the
term ‘frame’, it has acquired a plethora of divergent and occasionally
conflicting meanings. ‘Frame’ is sometimes used in contradistinction
to related terms, in particular ‘schema’ and ‘script’ (for overviews see
McLachlan/Reid 1994: 2, Semino 1997: 128), but sometimes also as a
synonym for these terms (as in McLachland/Reid 19943). Since by
‘script’ and ‘schema’ the majority of scholars refer to stereotyped
everyday situations, which are not in focus in the present volume, we
need not be concerned here with the distinction between these notions
and ‘frame’. Instead, ‘frame’ shall be used in the following as a general term which refers to discursive exchanges as in the production
and reception of literature and other media (it is in addition applicable
to further cases, but these are outside the scope of this volume). However, what does concern us is the general vagueness of the term
‘frame’ itself. Even from an otherwise excellent survey such as
McLachland/Reid 1994 it remains unclear whether ‘frames’ are single
or “bundles” of concepts (72), whether they are “metacommunicative”
phenomena (or “metamessages” [94 and passim]), or whether they
also include “experiential” elements and “structures of expectation”
(65), to which the notion of ‘metaconcept’ cannot easily be applied. In
addition, research is divided on the question whether frame-theory
should be concerned with frames as static cognitive “storage systems”
(sometimes related to stereotypes4) or with framing as “a dynamic
activity” (75).
3 Rumelhart 1980, in his excellent introduction to schema (or frame) theory, warns
against an indiscrimitate use of these and related terms as synonyms, yet seems to
regard them as being “closely enough related that a discussion of any one of them will
serve as an introduction to the others” (33).
4 Crystal 1987/1997: 417 defines frame from a linguistic point of view as “a knowledge structure which represents a situation which is predictable, or stereotyped”.
Frame as a configuration of expectations which is stored in a schematic way and recognized in ‘stereotyped situations’ (“typisierte Situationen”) in a given context
(Müller 1984: 42, cf. also Fludernik 1993: 446-449) also underlies Prince’s definition
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
3
In view of this diversity it is necessary to take a position in order to
prevent the term from losing its heuristic potential. This can arguably
be done on the basis of a functional view of the term, in which
divergent further qualifications appear as facets of one and the same
overall function in different subfields. As emerges from the title
McLachland/Reid 1994, Framing and Interpretation, all of the different approaches to ‘frames’ converge in one frame function, namely to
guide and even to enable interpretation – be it with reference to everyday experience and communication or to medial performances, artefacts etc. It is this interpretive function that justifies the description of
frames as meta-phenomena5. The presence of this function can, for
instance, transform even an ‘ordinary’ concept such as the notion of
‘story’ into a frame or a metaconcept, depending on how ‘story’ is
employed: such a transformation occurs when a notion such as ‘story’
is not used as a simple concept located on the same level as other
notions within an utterance (as in “the woman had already told me that
story twice during that day”) but as a ‘key’ to understanding a text as
a narrative (as occurs when a text is classified in its subtitle as a
‘story’).
As far as the different qualities which have been attributed to the
notion of ‘frame’ are concerned, one may say the following. As regards the question as to whether frames are ‘metacommunicative
concepts’ or not, the answer will depend on what phenomena one
wants to include in the term: if it also refers to everyday experience,
which is clearly not to be restricted to communication, this designation is certainly too limiting. However, since interpretation always
involves concepts, one can argue that frames as ‘keys’ to interpretation are at least ‘metaconcepts’: concepts that regulate the application
of ‘frame’ derived from Minsky 1975: “A set of related mental data representing
various aspects of reality and enabling human perception and comprehension of these
aspects” (Prince 1987: 33).
5 This can also be deduced, e.g. from Rumelhart’s description of ‘schemata’ (or
frames) as “unarticulated theor[ies]” or “computer programs” (1980: 37, 39).
4
Werner Wolf
of other concepts. At any rate, since the present volume is concerned
with artefacts and as these can be conceived of as forms of cultural
signification and communication using concepts, the idea of a frame
as a metaconcept is certainly justifiable within our context.
The additional problem, namely whether a frame is a single
(meta-)concept or a configuration of concepts, can be solved by
claiming that a frame is, as a rule, designated by a single term and as
such corresponds to one metaconcept but usually governs a plurality
of sub-concepts and expectations.
The opposition ‘static, stereotypical vs. dynamic conception of
frame’ can be solved by saying that on the one hand frames are cognitive guides of interpretation that are cultural constructs and hence have
a certain historical and cultural flexibility according to different
cultures and periods. They in particular depend on a period’s épistémè,
norms, conventions and the totality of the “frames of reference”
described by Hrushovsky as “basic unit[s] of semantic integration”
(1984: 12). This ‘dynamic’ plasticity also applies to the modification
of frames through personal experiences or cultural artefacts that open
up new perspectives and contribute to the emergence of new frames.
On the other hand, as acquired notions, frames have at least a relative
stability and tend, in particular in everyday situations, towards
stereotyping (otherwise they could not function as interpretive guides
nor could they raise expectations). Therefore, as with the problem of
regarding frames as either single metaconcepts or as a configuration of
concepts, both views – the dynamic as well as the static view – appear
to have some relevance and should be borne in mind simultaneously.
Lastly, the question whether frames should be investigated as cognitive givens or whether cognitive framing activities should be in
focus (which is clearly favoured by Reid 1992, and McLachlan/Reid
19946) can be answered in a similarly nuanced way: there can be no
framing activity without previously given frames which are applied,
6
For the disagreement in this matter see Tannen 1993b: 18f.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
5
modified, rejected or supplemented by other or even entirely new
frames. Thus, both aspects are again justified – and this is particularly
true when dealing with artefacts. For on the one hand artefacts, like
other signifying practices, are based on given frames, but on the other
hand artefacts can also be results of, or elicit, activities that lead to the
emergence of new frames (e.g. new literary genres). In spite of this
ambivalence a practical consideration may induce one to bracket
framing activities to a certain extent, namely the fact that one cannot
easily observe the cognitive framing taking place in recipients’ minds
(let alone that of recipients from past epochs), whereas cultural
‘frames of reference’ as givens are readily available to research.
Thus, ‘frames’ in the sense of ‘cognitive frames’ may, in a general
way, be described as culturally formed metaconcepts, most of which
possess a certain stability even if modified or new frames can emerge
in certain circumstances; these metaconcepts enable us to interpret
both reality and artefacts and hence other concepts that can be applied
in perception, experience and communication. Frames are, therefore,
basic orientational aids7 that help us to navigate through our experiential universe, inform our cognitive activities and generally function as
preconditions of interpretation. As such, frames also control the
framed. Similarly to the physical frames surrounding paintings,
frames, for instance, help to select (or construct) phenomena as forming a meaningful whole and therefore create coherent areas on our
mental maps. Thus, frames are keys to abstract knowledge, to communication and pragmatic situations, but also to what is most interesting in the present context, namely to the understanding of literature
and other media.
In highly stereotyped situations the appropriate frames will be
more or less taken for granted, as such situations seem to call for certain frames automatically as default settings (although in most cases
some covert, implicit markers usually exist here, too). If, for instance,
7 Cf. Müller 1984: 44, who follows Winograd (1977: 4) in defining “FRAMES” as
“‘a guide for structuring the processes of production and comprehension’”.
6
Werner Wolf
someone working together with a colleague asks him or her a question
immediately related to the work in progress, the frame is implied by
this very situation (which in turn may have an office as its covert
marker) and ‘goes without saying’, thereby rendering any further explicit marking unnecessary. Yet, there are also more unusual situations
that deviate from standard or everyday expectations and patterns and
for which special (additional) agreements between ‘senders’ and
‘receivers’ have to be made and signalled. This is, for example, the
case when certain utterances, such as are made in children’s role-playing or in drama, are to be understood in the sense of an ‘as-if’, as nonreal, fictional utterances. Such cases do not go without saying but
have to be marked in some way through interpretive, “metacommunicative [...] frame-setting message[s]” (Bateson 1955/1972: 190). These
“messages” refer to previously encoded frames – or create new ones –
and require adequate decoding if the situation is to be assessed correctly. Interpretive codings of this kind are what I will here call
‘framings’8. Although there are no discourses and there is no understanding without frame(s), there are, as these examples indicate, discursive and other situations without (overt or explicit) framing(s).
Framings may, thus, be defined as codings of abstract cognitive
frames that exist or are formed within, or on the margins and in the
immediate context of, the framed situation or phenomenon and – like
the corresponding frames – have an interpretive, guiding and controlling function with reference to it. Such coding can occur in an encoding activity of – in the terminology of communication theory – the
‘sender’, it can consist in a decoding activity of the ‘recipient’, or it
can be part of the ‘message’ and its context; that is, it can occur as a
8 Goffman 1974 has amply commented on special frames implying some departure
from normal, unmarked “primary frameworks” (21 ff.) – e.g. in games or fictions –
and on the necessity to mark these cases with “keys”, or “keying” them (40 ff.). For
another linguistic differentiation of ‘frame’ as opposed to the marking of frames in
the act of ‘framing’ cf. also Müller’s discussion of Fillmore’s (1976) frame-semantics
(“FILLMOREsche[...] FRAME-Semantik” [1984: 45]) or Tannen 1993a: 4, where
“framing” is explained as a “means by which frames are created in interaction”.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
7
“metamessage” (Tannen 1993a: 3; cf. also MacLachlan/Reind 1994:
93 and passim)9 in the form of a concrete, physical marker of, or ‘key’
to, a specific frame as an interpretive metaconcept. ‘Framings’ as parts
of ‘messages’ or artefacts thus denote not only frame-coding single
textual or contextual elements (e.g. the phrase ‘the incidents in this
novel are pure invention’ as part of a preface) but also the concrete
spaces or parts of artefacts or their immediate surroundings, in which
the coding of frames (optionally together with other messages) occurs
(e.g., a preface in its entirety10). In all of these cases (whether sender-,
recipient-, text-, or context-centred) the framing (similar to what it
encodes, namely frames) is located on another logical and/or physical
level than the framed11.
In some cases, this terminological distinction between ‘frame’ as
an abstract cognitive metaconcept and ‘framing’ as activity and in
particular a concrete coding of frames will, however, be difficult to
maintain. This applies notably to the frames of ‘frame stories’ as well
as to picture-‘frames’: both are typical ‘framings’, but the received
term ‘frame’ will, of course, continue to be used. Yet, one should bear
in mind that under frame-theoretical conditions a picture frame as well
as the frame of a frame story is a privileged place for the coding of
cognitive frames, a place in which such codings can occur with particular density or saliency.
9 However, neither Tannen nor MacLachlan/Reid distinguish between abstract
cognitive frames and their coding in ‘framings’ and therefore do not restrict “metamessage” to what will be specified below as ‘(con)textual framings’.
10 As will be explained below, paratexts (such as prefaces) are indeed important
instances of framings (notably in verbal media).
11 The hierarchy implied here has come under attack from a deconstructivist perspective (see, e.g., Gibson 1996: 219-235) for which all distinctions between ‘levels’
– and in particular the differentiation between discursive and metadiscursive ones – is
undesirable and should be replaced by the metaphor of the “rhizome” (Gibson 1996:
220). However, a normative denial of the possibility of distinguishing between framing and framed is untenable as it would blatantly contradict what most literature (not
only frame stories) and other media actually presuppose; and even the description of
highly unconventional, ‘experimental’ texts which blur ‘levels’ would be impossible
without reference to conventional distinctions.
8
Werner Wolf
2. Frames and framings in the theory of literature and
other media: state of the art and aims of the present
volume
In linguistics, the concepts of ‘frame’ and ‘framing’ were introduced a
long time ago, and have been widely used and recently much discussed. In research dealing with literature and other media, frametheoretical reflections have, however, not been nearly as common. In
part, at least in research in English, terminology may be responsible
for this, as ‘frame’ means quite different things, depending on the
medium focussed on. Indeed, the term ‘frame’ is at least as multifacetted in the specific reference to artefacts as in the general cognitive
sense outlined in the previous chapter. If the term occurs within the
‘frame’ of art history, it, of course, refers to physical picture frames
(which have elicited a certain interest in the recent past12). In film
studies, ‘frame’ denotes a single picture as the minimal visual unit of a
film. In literary studies, in the relatively few cases where the term is
employed systematically at all, ‘frame’ has been used with several
meanings, most frequently denoting the framing part of ‘frame stories’
(such as Boccaccio’s Il Decamerone)13. Moreover, ‘frame’ in
Lotman’s The Structure of the Artistic Text (1970/1977: ch. 8.1)
means the beginning and ending of every narrative, not only of frame
stories. The term has yet a different meaning in the discussion of
12 Cf. Mendgen, ed. 1995 and the 1995 exhibitions In Perfect Harmony: Bild und
Rahmen 1850-1920 in Vienna (Kunstforum) and Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) or
the 1987 exhibition in Dijon and Paris Le Cadre et le socle dans l’art du 20e siècle.
13 See elsewhere in this volume, “Framing Borders in Frame Stories”. This is also
the only meaning to be found s. v. “Rahmen” in German dictionaries of literary terminology such as Wilpert 1969, Träger, ed. 1986, or Schweikle/Schweikle, eds. 1990 (in
my entry in Nünning, ed. 1997/2004, I also felt compelled to use this denotation as
the first meaning mentioned); for a similarly restricted use cf. Seager 1991. The framings of a frame tale (as well as of similar mise-en-abyme structures as occurring in a
play within a play, a film within a film etc.) are indeed frequent and privileged places
of interpretive coding but, as will be shown, they are most certainly not the only relevant ones.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
9
‘frame breakings’, especially postmodernist ones, in which ‘frame’, as
a rule, designates the traditional order and conventions of a narrative14: such ‘frame breaking’ is frequently used here as a synonym for
‘metalepsis’ and constitutes an especially interesting sub-field of
frame-analytical studies, as the many contributions to this volume that
deal with this aspect indicate (Patricia Allmer’s on Magritte, Maria
Stefanescu’s on Cortázar, Margarete Rubik’s on Fforde, and my own
on ‘defamiliarized framings’). In addition, ‘frame’ in some cases also
refers to devices giving ‘relief’ to especially prominent or meaningful
passages in a narrative15. Furthermore, Philipe Hamon, in part anticipating Genette’s theory of the paratext, used the term “cadre” (in my
sense of ‘framing’) in a discussion of metalinguistic devices which are
employed as part of the ‘apparatus of demarcation’ which surrounds
texts (“‘l’appareil démarcatif’ de l’énoncé littéraire” [1977: 266]).
Lastly, there is a usage which comes relatively close to the idea of
‘cognitive frames’ as referred to in the present context, namely where
the term is employed in the sense of ‘general presuppositions of
knowledge as mental concepts in processes of production and understanding’ (“alltagsweltlich[e] [...] Wissensvoraussetzungen [...] als
mentale Konzepte [...] [und] Strukturierungsleitlinien von Produktions- und Verstehensprozessen” [Müske 1992: 8 and 31])16. The terminological confusion17 and widespread neglect of frame theory18 is
14 Cf. Pearse 1980, Waugh 1984: 28-34, and McHale 1987: 197-198.
15 For this special use of ‘frame’ see Caws 1985; it is also implied in some of the
forms of ‘framing’ mentioned by Reid 1992: 49.
16 Cf. also Pearce 1975 and Hrushovsky 1984 and his theory of “frames of reference”.
17 The deplorably inconsistent use of ‘frame’ in present-day literary theory is well
illustrated in the Concise Glossary of Contemporary Literary Theory by Jeremy
Hawthorn (1994: 74-76), in which – unlike most similar dictionaries (especially
dictionaries in German) – the term does appear in an article of several pages. In this
article, Hawthorn not only mentions the traditional use of the term in ‘frame stories’
but refers also, among others, to Goffman’s theory, to Mary Ann Caws’ monograph,
to Mieke Bal’s use (1980/1985) of the concept as “space in which the CHARACTER
is situated” (74) and to Umberto Eco (1977/1981), for whom “INTERTEXTUAL”
frames are “literary topoi or narrative schemes” (75).
10
Werner Wolf
particularly surprising in literary studies, since Goffman, as one of its
pioneers, repeatedly discussed literature and in fact dedicated a whole
chapter of his Frame Analysis to drama (1974: ch. 5)19.
The situation is even more problematic with reference to what is in
focus in the present volume, namely ‘framings’ as codings of cognitive frames. Indeed, the ‘effacement’ of the picture frame, mentioned
by Derrida in La Vérité en peinture (1978/1987: 73, cf. also MacLachlan/Reid 1994: 6 and passim), seems to have affected scholarly attention, too. This is true concerning individual media such as literature,
where there are only a few exceptions (including Goffman 1974,
Hamon 1977 [cf. 266 f.], Lanser 1981, and above all Genette’s study
on paratexts [1987]) which deal with the question of marking
frames20; but the neglect also applies to the fact that framings – as
much as frames – are transmedial phenomena, phenomena that exist
in more than one medium (actually in all media) and as such should
have found attention within this interdisciplinary context, too.
18 Apart from isolated publications such as Frow 1982 (an excellent study), Caws
1985, or Fishman Summerfield 1986, literary frame theory has in fact not met with
much attention to date. While Frow 1982 is a first valuable attempt at presenting
various forms and functions of literary framings, Caws 1985 is only a marginal contribution to the field, since she deals primarily with “techniques enabling a concentration on a specific passage” inside a work of fiction (21), and Fishman Summerfield
1986 is even more disappointing, owing to her inconsistent and highly idiosyncratic
use of the term ‘framing’. Fludernik 1993 concentrates on the problems of “(illicit)
transferral of the frame of real-life conversational narrative onto literary personae and
constructed entities” (448). Seager 1991 – together with Schwanitz (1990: 99-110) and
parts of MacLachlan/Reid 1994 – can be counted among the few attempts to introduce
the linguistic concepts of frame/framing into literary theory and interpretation.
19 Cf. also Bateson, who mentions literary genres such as “fantasy or myth” as particularly in need of framings (1955/1972: 190).
20 Lanser, in the third chapter of her book on The Narrative Act (1981), discusses
various manifestations and functions of the “textual voice” currently often called
“paratexts”. Yet neither she nor the coiner of this latter term, Genette, explicitly use
the term ‘framing’. Another remarkable book using the concept of ‘framing’ is Reid
1992. Yet, in contrast to Genette and also to my ensuing discussion, Reid does not
consider ‘framing’ primarily as a ‘textual’ (or author-centred) phenomenon but as a
reader activity: “framing is something that a reader does to a text; it is the application
of an interpretive procedure” (13); cf. also MacLachlan/Reid 1994: 6.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
11
The present volume aims to overcome the neglect of frametheoretical and frame-practical reflections within a transmedial framework that includes not only literature but also other media. Owing to
this broad perspective, it equally belongs to a field that has attracted
wide-spread attention in the past few years: the field of intermediality
studies (cf. Barricelli/Gibaldi, eds. 1982; Zima, ed. 1995; Lagerroth et
al., eds. 1997; Helbig, ed. 1998; Wolf 1999b and 2002; Rajewsky
2002). This affiliation is also indicated in the fact that the present
volume is the first in a series dedicated to the study of intermediality.
It is in fact not only intermedial in its general transmedial perspective
on framing in various individual media but also, as a number of
contributions to the present volume show, as a phenomenon that is
observable in framing practices to the extent that they frequently
involve more than one medium and thus constitute variants of
intermedial reference or even of plurimediality.
As framings from this intermedial point of view form an area too
vast for exploration in one volume, certain restrictions must apply:
this refers on the one hand to the particular focus of this volume,
which is on the trans- and plurimedial forms and functions of what
will be explained in the following as ‘framing borders’. On the other
hand, limitations also refer to the circumstance that, as is usual in first
explorations of a field, completeness cannot possibly be achieved,
neither in the range of functions and forms nor in the media discussed.
Thus, in the eighteen case studies collected in this volume (sixteen of
which are revised contributions to a conference on ‘Framing in
Literature and Other Media’ held in Graz in June 2004), there is no
essay that explores framings in lyric poetry or in drama (where
prologues and epilogues would be interesting objects of study in the
present context21); there is moreover no contribution which investigates radio drama, and none deals exclusively with ‘contextual fram-
21 However, some aspects of dramatic prologues as literary framings are treated in
Wolf, forthcoming.
12
Werner Wolf
ings’ as formed by opera houses, theatres, concert halls or museums22.
Still, the range of media covered (narrative literature, film, the visual
arts, architecture and music) is sufficiently large to highlight the transmedial nature of framings. In exploring framings in various media the
following questions guiding both the project as a whole and the
individual contributions have been asked: What means do individual
media have at their disposal to influence reception processes? How do
individual media collaborate in the field of plurimedial framings or in
works where framings and the framed belong to different media?
What functions do framings fulfill, and how have these and the
different forms of framings evolved over the centuries?
3. Frames and framings in literature and other media:
meaning of the terms and forms of framings
As the basis of the present volume is a transfer of the notions of
‘frame’ and ‘framing’ from linguistics and other disciplines to the
study of literature and other media as specific forms of signifying
practices, it is to be expected that ‘frame’ and ‘framing’ will be used
here with specific denotations and that the plethora of existing meanings that have been mentioned above is reduced to relatively clear and
manageable dimensions. Therefore, we should answer the following
questions: What in fact does ‘frame’ and ‘framing’ mean for a frameanalytical study that deals with works or performances of literature,
the visual arts, in film or music23, and what ‘framing’ phenomena are
in focus in the present volume?
A first, basic specification must be made: our discussion of ‘framings in literature and other media’ cannot equally embrace all kinds of
framings that might occur within or in the context of literary and other
22 On museums, see, however, the concluding remarks in Richard Phelan’s contribution to this volume.
23 In order not to over-complicate the text, in the following , ‘work’ will also include
‘performance’.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
13
medial works but must focus on particularly important ones. As literature and other media imply specific frames as artefacts it is advisable
to concentrate on those framings that code frames which take this
special nature into account. In other words, what must primarily be in
focus in a discussion of framings ‘in’ works of literature and other
media are framings that refer to, and guide the interpretation of (parts
of), such works as artefacts. In particular, this means that frames and
framings in literature and other media are linked to the aforementioned circumstance that the discursive exchange elicited by them,
as opposed to everyday communication, is an ‘unusual’ one. This
unusualness derives from the fact that most medial exchanges,
including those referring to literature and other arts, are informed by
several specific frames:
1. the frame ‘artwork’: in Western, non-pragmatic art this frame
triggers a specific, aesthetic approach (ästhetische Einstellung) and
leads to the expectation that an artwork is a meaningful unit, no
matter how obscure or fragmented a given work may seem, and
that it should not be received merely for pragmatic purposes; this
relative independence of what is regarded as ‘art’ from pragmatic
considerations frequently appears to produce a certain indeterminacy24 concerning the situation in which the reception takes place
(novels can be read in a plethora of contexts, and for almost a century people have become accustomed to ‘consuming’, e.g. radio
music, in equally undetermined circumstances);
2. generic frames: generic conventions form frames that not only
contribute to distinguishing artworks and other medial products
24 In literary theory, the ‘lack of a pragmatic communicative situation of fictional
texts’ has been emphasized by Iser (“der fiktionale Text [...] ist situationslos” [1975:
294]). However, the thesis of the situational indeterminacy has justly been criticized
(cf. Warning 1983: 191 f.) since (Western) literature as well as other medial products
are, of course, not typically discourses produced by anonymous agencies without intentions and without reference to a historical and social context, nor do they typically
appear without some hints concerning the special frames of interpretation which
should be attributed to individual works.
14
Werner Wolf
from each other but can also trigger expectations that are quite different from those in real life (thus, the appearance of ghosts may be
regarded as improbable in life, while in horror films, as well as in
Gothic stories and novels, this is not so);
3. the frame ‘fictionality’: in media representing or constructing possible worlds, fictionality is a frequently applicable frame that implies a specific, ‘non-serious’ or playful communication25 and also
creates a kind of uncertainty or vagueness that would be untypical
of pragmatic communication.
The unusualness produced by these and further frames in the reception
of artefacts has important consequences concerning the role of
framings: as the reception of fictional artefacts is embedded in what
might be called – in contrast to Goffman’s “primary frameworks”
(1974: 21 ff.) – a ‘secondary framework’, literary texts and other medial products usually require more framings than stereotyped everyday activities or communicational situations. These framings frequently have as their content precisely the frames just mentioned.
A further phenomenon is also responsible for the special importance of framings with reference to media such as literature, film,
music or painting, as opposed to real-life: in the arts and media one
must expect a greater ‘plasticity’ of the frames. This regards in particular the above-mentioned tendency of aesthetic works (as well as
their production and reception) not only to refer to existing frames but
to create new, or at least more or less modified ones. Obviously,
framing is then all the more necessary. This applies also to the kind of
framings that is in focus here, namely to those that contribute to the
interpretation of literary and other medial works as artefacts.
Framings in literature and other media exist in a variety of forms.
These can be ordered typologically according to a number of criteria
(see below, Figure 1) which permit a comparison between the various
25 Fictionality (in particular of drama) as ‘play’ that requires ‘keying’ was emphasized by Goffman 1974, and such “play frames” have recently been discussed also
with reference to film (Anderson 1996; quotation on p. 120).
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
15
manifestations of framings among homo- as well as heteromedial
works (mono- and plurimedial artefacts)26. It should be noted that different categories and forms can be combined in one and the same
framing.
Criteria of differentiation
Forms of framings
a) framing agency
sender-based
recipient-based
message- or ‘text’-based27
context-based
b) extension of framing
total vs. partial
c) framing medium in
relation to framed
[only for (con-)textual framings]:
homo- vs. heteromedial
d) authorization of framing
authorized (intracompositional)
vs. non-authorized (extracompositional)
e) saliency of the framing
overt/explicit vs. covert/implicit
f) location of framing with
reference to actual message/text
g) location in process of
reception
[only for textual framings]:
para- vs. intratextual
[only for textual framings
of temporal media]:
initial – internal – terminal
Figure 1: Typology of framings
a) A first criterion of a typology of framings refers to the framing
‘agency’. As already said, there are several potential ‘agencies’:
the ‘sender’ (author, painter, film-maker, composer), the ‘recipient’28 (reader, viewer, listener) and the ‘message’ (the work in
26 A noteworthy typology of framing was presented by Reid (1992: 44-57), although
he accentuates framing activities rather than results. Reid distinguishes between “textual”, “extratextual”, “circumtextual” and “intertextual” framings. His typology, while
being more differentiated than my own in the field outside ‘textual framings’, is less
elaborate inside this field, which is, however, particularly important for the present
volume.
27 For the broad sense in which ‘text’ is used here see above, note 28.
28 In Reid’s terminology recipient-based framings correspond to “extratextual”
framings (1992: 46), while sender-based ones do not occur.
16
Werner Wolf
question) and its context. The framings that are attributable to
these ‘agencies’ differ in that sender- and recipient-based
framings are interpretive encoding or decoding activities, while
context- and message- or ‘text-based’ framings can be regarded
as interpretive signals and hence ‘givens’29.
‘Contextual framings’ are ‘given’ framings and occur in the
cultural space ‘outside’ the work in question30. They may, for instance, take on the form of an author’s comment on his writings in
an interview, of an art gallery signalling that the frame ‘artwork’
for the exhibited objects is applicable, or of trailers advertising a
forthcoming film (see Erik Hedling’s contribution to this
volume)31. If framings as ‘givens’ appear ‘inside’, that is, as parts
of a work or ‘text’, they are ‘textual framings’. Both contextual
and textual framings are highly important for the recipient’s
framing activity.
Among the four possibilities resulting from using the ‘framing
agency’ as a criterion, the ‘context’ and above all the ‘text’ will
predominantly be focussed on in the following essays32. This is
29 In the following, for simplicity’s sake, I will use the term ‘text’ in a broad sense
which includes all sorts of verbal as well as non-verbal signifying systems.
30 In Reid’s terminology this would include both “intertextual” (1992: 51) and
“circumtextual” framings (44), which, however, also contain what below will be referred to as ‘paratextual’ framings. Cf. also MacLachlain/Reid 1994: 4; MacLachlan/
Reid, following Culler 1988, insist that context as such is also ‘produced’, yet when
they speak of ‘context’, they have in mind contextual (cognitive) frames, not contextual framings in my sense.
31 Genette, in his typology of ‘paratexts’, which, however, refer only to printed literature, terms part of these external framings “épitexte[s]” as opposed to “péritexte]s]”, which are given in the work under consideration (1987: 10 f.). Reid (1992:
40-58) opposes “extratextual” and “circumtextual framing” to “intratextual” and “intertextual framing”.
32 As contextual framings are often more difficult to assess and may be ‘read’ very
differently by different recipients, it is indeed understandable if one privileges textual
framings, which are more easily available. For example, not all readers of John
Fowles’s The French Lieutenant’s Woman (1969) will have read the author’s own
comments on this novel, since they are not included in the current editions, but have
only the text and its framings at their disposal.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
17
justifiable because (con-)textual framings lend themselves more
easily to quotation or illustration and interpretation than senderand recipient-based ones. In addition, (con-)textual framings are
intimately linked to both sender- and recipient-based framing
activities, which are not free-floating but dependent on the context
as well as on the message: the sender’s framing activity will be
focussed on potential recipients and manifests itself in framing
markers, while the recipient’s framing process, which has found
some attention in frame theory33, is not an autonomous process
either but to a large extent determined by textual framings, which
the recipient is supposed to decode. Moreover, it is as much influenced, e.g. by contextual cultural framings, as the sender’s encoding activity. Thus, (con-)textual framings are the legitimate
core of research dealing with medial framings. This is why textbased and context-based framings with an immediate relation to
the framed will be privileged as the focus of the typological differentiations as well as of the discussions in this volume. The further
restriction to contextual framings with an “immediate relation to
the framed” is advisable if one does not want to get lost in the
potentially endless field of contextual discourses, documents or
elements that may be identified as ‘markers’ in the construction of
the frames conditioning the reception of a given work34.
b) A second criterion that, within a transmedial typology of framings,
still applies to all framing agencies (as it can refer to both cognitive
33 ‘Reader/receiver-based framing’ is a vast field in which some work has been done
by Reid 1992, who regards framing as a readerly activity (cf. 13); cf. also Culler’s
concept of “framing the sign” as “something we do” (1988: xiv). It is, however, a
mistake (as Reid’s own work shows, since he is constantly forced to take recourse to
textual or contextual framings outside the reader’s responsibility), to neglect its complement: the framing contained in a text and its immediate context (‘text/contextbased framing’).
34 For instance, among Virginia Woolf’s many writings only those would be termed
‘contextual framings’ of her novel Mrs Dalloway (1925) which explicitly deal with
this novel; all other texts, even though they may yield valuable general information
on the novel and Woolf’s aesthetics, would just be ‘contexts’.
18
Werner Wolf
processes and physical results) concerns the question of the extension of a particular framing or framing activity: it may be relevant
to an entire work, in which case it is a total framing, or only to
part of a work, in which case it is a partial framing.
c) The third criterion, like all the following ones, is already restricted
to (con-)textual framings, as it manifests itself only in ‘products’: it
is of particular importance from an intermedial perspective as it
centres on the number of media employed within the framings
themselves or in the combination of framings and framed works.
Framing and framed can be homomedial, or both can belong to
different media: they are then heteromedial and form a plurimedial whole (as in the banal case of a verbal caption accompanying a
painting). The same, of course, applies to framings alone, which
can also employ one or more media (the latter variant applies, e.g.,
when the introductory material of a novel not only comprises paratexts but also a frontispiece, hence a picture).
d) The fourth criterion (deducible from what Pearson 1990: 16 has
said about literary framings) refers to the original unity of composition between framed and framings (usually, but not necessarily,
related to the question of authorship, as ‘allographic’ framings by
another agency than the author [cf. Genette 1987: 14] may yet be
authorized or tolerated by her or him). As this criterion refers to
products only, it is also restricted to textual and contextual framings: on the one hand both framing and framed can form an originally planned and authorized compositional unit, in which case the
framing is ‘intracompositional’ or authorized; yet framings can
also be altered or added to the framed independently of an original
design, in which case they are ‘extracompositional’ or unauthorized35.
35 MacLachlan/Reid 1994 use seemingly similar terminology in a partly different
sense: while for them, too, intracompositional framings are “‘authorially’ controlled”,
extracompositional ones “belong to the world of the viewer/consumer” (24). In cases
where, e.g., the authorization of framings by other agencies than the author is difficult
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
19
e) Yet another possibility of distinguishing between different framings (always with respect to framings-as-givens, as opposed to
framings-as-activities), is based on the criterion of saliency. It permits us to differentiate between non-salient, covert or implicit
framings and salient, overt or explicit ones. An overt or explicit
framing is a discrete physical unit marking a frame in an easily
identifiable way inside or outside the framed (part of a) work.
Overt framings are easily discernible, usually because they are not
only functionally and logically located on another level than the
framed (i.e. on a meta-level) but also manifestly appear on such a
different level. In contrast to this, a covert or implicit framing is
also a discrete, physical marking of a frame; it is, however, not so
easily discernible, for instance, because it does not openly appear
on another level than the framed. Thus, stills advertising a film outside a cinema are overt framings, as they visibly appear on another
level than the film itself, while an exaggerated stereotypical and
perhaps funny scene within a film signalling the frame ‘parody’ is
a covert framing.
f) With reference to (entirely or partially) verbal media such as
printed literature, drama, the visual arts, film, and also vocal music
and the musical theatre, textual framings may be further subdivided, to borrow a term from Genette (1987), into ‘paratextual
framings’ and ‘intratextual framings’36. However, in contrast to
Genette, for whom ‘paratexts’ comprise both ‘contextual’ and
‘textual’ framings, I would like to restrict ‘paratextual framings’,
whether authorized or not, to a variant of ‘textual’ framings,
to assess it may be useful – taking up some of Genette’s categories (see 1987: 14) –
simply to distinguish between authorial and allographic framings.
36 For a similar differentiation with reference to film see Anderson 1996: 120-125.
The typology of forms of framing in MacLachlan/Reid 1994, is, however, different.
Partly owing to a non-distinction between ‘frame’ and ‘framing’ in the senses used in
the present “Introduction”, their categories, even if they sound similar, do not correspond to my categories: thus, their category ‘circumtextual framing’ contains both
‘paratextual’ and ‘intratextual’ framings in my sense.
20
Werner Wolf
namely to paratexts which are parts of individual works and are
positioned at their borders, but are discernible not only through
their liminal position but also, and, above all, through their function as introductory, explanatory etc. material that forms a ‘threshold’ to the main text of the work in question (Genette aptly entitled
his exploration of paratexts Seuils). As liminal phenoma, paratexts
possess a characteristic ambiguity: they are positioned in between
text and context and belong to the ‘work’ but not to the text proper
(i.e. the presentation of the possible world). In printed literature,
such ‘paratextual’ framings include titles, epigraphs, footnotes,
postscripts etc.37, in film the opening or closing credits, and in performed drama prologues and epilogues are sometimes also classified as paratexts (cf. Genette 1987: 154; Bruster/Weimann 2004:
38)38. In the visual arts, the ‘paratext’ would correspond to a
picture frame or a caption, as opposed to a painted frame or writing
as part of the represented world on the canvas. In music, one may
argue whether, e.g., the overture to an opera may be likened to a
preface in fiction or to a theatrical prologue and may hence be
analogous to a paratext39.
Intratextual framings (which are usually authorized) comprise
all elements within the main ‘text’ that signal particular cognitive
frames which are relevant to the reception of the work in consideration (or parts of it). With a view to media that can represent
reality, such as fiction, drama and film, and which therefore can
also represent all kinds of framing occurring in real life it should be
remembered that the focus will be in particular on those intratextual framings that contribute to the coding of literary and other
works as artefacts. Thus, in fiction, parents who discuss the celebration of the birthday of a child and thus mark the appropriate
37 For a short “‘checklist’” of such paratextual framings see Lanser 1981: 130.
38 Elsewhere I have argued that prologues also bear resemblances to ‘extradiegetic’,
narratorial passages in fiction (cf. Wolf, forthcoming).
39 See the contribution to this volume by Michael Walter.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
21
frame for the following scene as part of an intratextually represented possible world would be disregarded, while framings of
frame stories, in particular where interpretive instructions concerning the embedded story are given, would be central objects of consideration. The same applies to other intratextual framings such as
explicitly metafictional comments by a narrator who openly lays
bare the fictionality of the text one is reading, or else to opening
formulae such as “Once upon a time” that indicate the genre ‘fairy
tale’ and thus serve an implicitly metafictional function. In film,
the framing of a film within a film would be another example of a
particularly relevant intra-‘textual’ framing, while in painting this
would, for instance, be the mise en abyme of a physical picture
frame as a part of what is represented on the canvas.
g) Of additional interest is a final criterion, which, however, is only
applicable to temporal media: it bears on the location of framings
in the reception process and serves to distinguish between initial,
internal and terminal framings. It should be clear that this criterion cuts across the above distinction between para- and intratextual framings as, for instance, literary end framings can be both paratextual afterwords or intratextual closing formulae, as sometimes
used in fairy tales (“[...] and they lived happily ever after”). It
should also be mentioned in this context that the present focus on
the cognitive functions of framings entails an analysis – or reconstruction – of framings and their workings during the first reception of an artefact or text, for it is under this condition that the particular location of framings in the reception process is most important (while repeated receptions would blur the differences somewhat, as former framings may be felt to anticipate later ones).
4. Framing borders in literature and other media,
and some of their functions
As we could see from the typology outlined in the preceding chapter,
there is a plethora of possible forms of framings. There are even so
22
Werner Wolf
many that the inclusion of all of these forms in a research project
would result in such a multitude of heterogeneous phenomena that it
would be difficult to come to any meaningful results. The intermedial
focus of the present book would aggravate this problem, and, even if
one restricted research to one medium only, yet another problem
would remain: namely the fact that not all of the manifold varieties of
framing are equally interesting and equally useful for the interpretation of given works. For example, authorized/intracompositional framings will in most contexts appear as more relevant than allographic,
unauthorized/extracompositional ones. Since framings are more
relevant the more they influence recipient-response and the more
easily they are quotable and discernible, it is advisable to privilege not
only, as already said, contextual and, above all, textual framings but in
addition those that are salient or overt (as opposed to covert ones), and
in temporal media those that appear in initial position. For it is at the
beginning of an intended reception process that important frames of
reference are traditionally signalled and expectations are created, and
when frames are signalled, this is usually done in a salient way and
refers to the entire work under consideration.
A concentration on overt, total and ‘textual’ framings could be carried out with reference to all media. Yet, a further focus on what
seems to be particularly interesting, above all for a reception-oriented
cognitive perspective, namely on initial framings, would clearly be inapplicable to spatial media. This limitation can be avoided if one uses
a notion as a common denominator of transmedial comparison that has
repeatedly been employed in frame-theoretical discussions (recently,
e.g. by Young 2004): the idea of a ‘border’. Indeed, the concentration
on – predominantly authorized/intracompositional – framing borders, be it in a spatial or a temporal sense, is what most of the contributions in this volume have in common, as the ‘edge’ in both respects
is indeed a privileged place for signalling relevant frames.
It should be mentioned, though, that coding cognitive frames in the
sense of metaconcepts that guide interpretation is not the only function
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
23
of framing borders. They can, in addition, contain ‘simple’ concepts
that may also influence the reception of the respective work but are
not metaconcepts (and consequently their coding would not be an
instance of ‘framing’ in our sense). Thus, a prologue prefacing a performance of a play may signal the frame ‘theatrical situation’ as such
(and to this extent contain an instance of ‘framing’, since a ‘theatrical
situation’ is a complex metaconcept). This is, for instance, the case in
the prologue to Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, where the prologuefigure, speaking on behalf of his fellow-actors, meta-dramatically
refers to the “two-hours’ traffic of our stage” (Shakespeare 1997: 873;
Prol. 12). Yet, the same prologue may also announce some content
details about the story that will be performed, such as the names of
principal characters or the fact that “[t]wo households, both alike in
dignity [...]/From ancient grudge” will “break to new mutiny” (Prol. 12). These pieces of information, while forming part of the play’s
border, need not necessarily be ‘frames’ (and therefore this information would not be a case of ‘framing’40). Yet, there are hardly any
‘framing borders’ that would only contain such ‘lower-level’ information. Rather, setting cognitive frames seems to be their most important
concern – and therefore framing borders and their framing functions
will be the focus in the present volume (without, however, excluding
occasional further forms and functions of framings41).
In terms of the foregoing typology of framings (see Figure 1) the
emphasis of the present volume can be described as follows: it will be
40 As frequently happens, in practice the distinction between simple information
contained in a ‘border’ and the coding of a metaconcept can be ‘fuzzy’. This is, for
instance, the case if a character’s name is mentioned in the prologue of a classical
tragedy. This may trigger a well-known story-scenario (e.g. by referring to a myth)
and thereby set a play in a specific context. As opposed to the example quoted from
Shakespeare, in this case the seemingly simple information of a name can at the same
time be tantamount to the coding of a frame (namely the myth in which the character
of that name occurs, along with all of its details and connotations).
41 An example of a framing other than a framing border in fiction would be an ‘internal’ metafictional comment by a narrator laying bare the fictionality of the text in
the middle of a novel.
24
Werner Wolf
on overt (because of their nature as discernible borders), mostly total42
and predominantly ‘(para-)textual’, although also on some ‘contextual’43 framings that are either temporally located in initial (occasionally also terminal) positions or in a spatial sense immediately surround
the framed phenomena. It should be noted that the notion of ‘framing
border’, in verbal artefacts, includes both paratexts and (initial and
terminal) intratextual elements44 (which is an advantage, e.g. in
dramatology, where the status of prologues as paratexts or ‘narratorial
elements of the main text’ is difficult to establish45), and that nothing
has been specified concerning the opposition of ‘homo- vs.
heteromedial’ framings (both will be treated in the following). For an
overview of the position of such contextual and textual ‘framing borders’ within the range of possible forms of framings in literature and
other media see Figure 2.
Examples of such framing borders are, in literature in general, the
framing parts of frame narratives (see my essay in this volume,
“Framing Borders in Frame Stories”) or of plays within plays, and in
written literature – if we concentrate on individual books as units –
cover illustrations and opening paratexts (see the contributions to this
volume by Till Dembeck, Christian Quendler, Margarete Rubik, and
my own on “Defamiliarized Initial Framings”), but also initial intermedial (ekphrastic) references, e.g. to pictures (see Haiko Wandhoff’s
42 The position at the border of an artefact privileges a relevance of the framing to
the artefact as a whole.
43 Framing borders can be part of the work itself (i.e. picture frames, whether designed by the painter him- or herself or not), but can also be located in the immediate
context surrounding the work (e.g. a particular form of stages framing drama in a
specific period of drama history).
44 Paratexts, according to Genette 1987, are ‘thresholds’ to the main text that are
visually located at its margins (initially, e.g. as a foreword, internally, e.g. as a
chapter title or a footnote, and terminally, e.g. as an afterword). Yet, for the status as a
framing border the functional criterion of coding framings in initial (or terminal)
position is more important than Genette’s visual one, and therefore initial (and
terminal) intratextual elements are in principle also eligible in our context.
45 For the ambiguous status of dramatic prologues see Wolf, forthcoming.
25
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
FRAMINGS IN LITERATURE AND OTHER MEDIA
sender-based
(framing as
process)
contextual
(framing as ‘given’,
homo- and heteromedial)
textual
(framing as ‘given’,
homo- and heteromedial)
recipient-based
(framing as
process)
framing border
other framings
framing border
other framings
extra-compositional
or intra-comp.,
intra-/extracompositional
usually total,
initial/terminal
always overt
total/partial
internal
usually total
total/partial
always overt
overt
covert
overt
covert
italics: forms of framings applicable to temporal media only
bold types: forms of framings emphasized in the present volume
Figure 2: The position of ‘framing borders’ within a typology of
framings
essay in this book) and terminal elements (see Remigius Bunia’s contribution46). If we focus on individual pages, framing borders also include the painted margins of book illustrations (see the contribution
by Anja Grebe). In performed literature, dramatic prologues are
among the best-known (opening) framing borders. In painting and
related arts, framing borders are, of course, picture frames or their
substitutes (see the contributions by Patricia Allmer, Vera Beyer,
Daniel Herrmann, and Richard Phelan). In architecture, framing borders can also occur as constructions and arrangements that highlight
46 Cf. also Larroux 1994, who explicitly employs the metaphor of ‘frame’ (cadre).
26
Werner Wolf
particular parts inside a building (see below, Götz Pochat’s essay) or
the entire building. In film, framing borders are contextual trailers (see
Erik Hedling’s contribution) as well as the paratextual framings
usually occurring in the form of opening or closing credits (see the
essay by Roy Sommer); and in music, framing borders can be ‘paratextual’ overtures (see Michael Walter’s contribution) as well as
‘intratextual’ passages introducing a framed composition (see Walter
Bernhart’s essay).
As far as typical functions of such framing borders are concerned,
they all – like the abstract frames they code – have one basic function
in common: as framings, or in Goffman’s terminology, “keyings”
(1974: 40 ff.), they help the recipient to select frames of interpretation
or reference relevant for the work under consideration. If the abstract
frames can be described as tools of interpretation, their codings in
framings are the (visible or imagined) labels on the tool-box that induce the recipient to choose the correct tools. By pointing to frames as
tools or guides of interpretation, framings – and this applies also and
in particular to the special form of framing borders – likewise fulfill
an essentially interpretive, but also a controlling function. Most
importantly, framings mark an artefact as such and distinguish it from
its surroundings by indicating the special rules (frames) that apply in
its reception. Lotman has this function in mind when speaking of the
beginning and the ending of a temporal artefact as a ‘frame’ that
marks the border between the infinite world and the finite artefact as a
model of the world47. In addition, framing borders often contribute to
the overcoming of what has become typical of Western, de-pragmatized art, namely the afore-mentioned seeming situational indeterminacy: in literature, for instance, framing borders thus frequently help
to constitute or stabilize a real or imaginary reception situation in
which the individual artefact makes sense. In this they cannot only
47 See Lotman 1970/1977: ch. 8.1, and Larroux 1994, a highly interesting essay that
centres in particular on the closing markers of literary texts.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
27
highlight the artefact as such, but also its relation to the producer, to a
certain context or to themselves as recipients.
These general functions may be specified as follows, according to
the predominant relation of a framing element to one out of five constituents of the discursive exchange (it should be noted, though, that
one element may have several functions at the same time):
The most obvious function of the framing is its message- or textcentred function. It may generally be attributed to all elements providing a direct interpretive help for, or a control of, the reception by
commenting on the ‘text’ or artefact and by creating certain expectations about it (cf. Frow 1982: 26, 27)48. Such text-centred framings
are, for instance, generic markers or indicators of the location of the
work in question within the opposition ‘fiction vs. non-fiction’ (according to Goffman, this is even the most prominent task of the “keying” [1974: 47]49). This text-centred function may also be seen at work
in liminal framing borders that delimit an artefact and distinguish it
from its surroundings or other artefacts, thus marking a compositional
unity50. In an analogous way it is discernible in the signalling of the
beginning or ending of artefacts of temporal media (“The End”). The
text-centred function is moreover present in all elements giving
information, e.g., on an artefact’s creation, themes or relevant
individual frames of interpretation (cf. Genette 1987: 15). In addition,
it manifests itself where certain elements of the work are highlighted
48 In textual framings, this text-centred function often creates self-referentiality (or
self-reflexivity) within the work in question and can be related to Jakobson’s phatic
and metatextual functions of language (cf. 1960).
49 The indication of fictionality, or at least artificiality, in or by framing devices as
opposed to non-fictional or natural phenomena is in fact an important factor in creating aesthetic distance and ensuring the reception of a work as art. This is underlined
both by art historians (e.g. Zaloscer 1974: 190) and narratologists or textual critics,
e.g. Lotman 1970/1977: 209), who all emphasize the unity of the work of art created
by framing devices. Cf. also Weinrich 1971: 9: “Eine literarische Kommunikation
enthält, vorzugsweise zu Beginn der Kommunikation, bestimmte Zeichen, die den
literarischen Charakter (die ‘Poetizität’) des übermittelten Textes signalisieren.”
50 With reference to pictorial framings cf. already Simmel 1902/1922: 46f.
28
Werner Wolf
as particularly meaningful, or where a selection which should be made
during the reception is prestructured51. The text-centred function is
also present in occasional elements serving as embellishments and
markers of value (as can be observed in some learned literary epigraphs as well as in many painterly frames, in particular in gilt frames,
where the use of gold is traditionally a marker of value)52. A
particularly interesting text-centred function may operate in certain
forms of what I have called elsewhere ‘mise en cadre’ (Wolf 1999a:
104 and 2001: 63-65): this refers to the (as a rule anticipatory) illustration of elements of the framed artefact in the framing53 so that a
discernible relationship of similarity is established between the two
levels54. This device is, for instance, at work in a particularly sombre
51 This selective function of framing is especially important if artefacts are not considered to be a sum of signs which “are simply given to perception” and all of which
are equally relevant, but as complexes in which “to perceive [...] signifier[s] at all is
to confer on some patterns and not on others the status of meaningful expressions”
(Culler 1988: 224).
52 For this minor function, which is restricted to some forms of paratexts, cf. again
Genette (1987: 374): “‘faire joli’”.
53 As opposed to Larroux 1994, for whom mise en cadre simply means the fact of
adding a framing text to another, more important text (see 247f.), I define ‘mise en
cadre’ as one of the forms of typically literary “similitudes textuelles” (Ricardou
1978: 75), more precisely as the opposite of the mise en abyme: both forms are
variants of self-referentiality operating within one and the same text or artefact; yet,
while the latter designates a discrete lower level element or passage which is characterized by a similarity to a structure or element of a higher level, mise en cadre refers
to the ‘higher’, framing level to the extent as it contains similarities to the framed lower
level (see also my contribution on “Framing Borders in Frame Stories” in this volume).
54 Creating similarities through ‘illustrations’ is what differentiates mise en cadre
from ordinary framings as codings of cognitive frames. In verbal artefacts, this means
that elements of the framed text are not merely thematized in the framing border in
the mode of ‘telling’ but are illustrated in the mode of ‘showing’. Thus, the coding of
the frame ‘adventure story’ in the title of Daniel Defoe’s novel Robinson Crusoe, The
Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, is a ‘framing’ in the
sense used in this essay but not a mise en cadre; in contrast to this, the title of Oscar
Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest could be regarded as a micro mise en cadre
because it establishes a similarity with elements of the following play not only by
‘telling’ but by ‘showing’ both the witty word play (earnest/Ernest) and the nonfulfilment of expectations (seriousness as an “important” theme of a comedy!) that so
conspicuously inform Wilde’s comedy.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
29
operatic overture that ‘sets the frame’ for the atmosphere of the
ensuing tragic opera. Of course, the details of the similarities (e.g.
particular motives of the opera that may be anticipated in an overture)
can only be perceived retrospectively and thus constitute mise-encadre elements that are beyond what is in focus in the following volume, namely first receptions. Yet, cultural conventions may permit the
informed listener of such an overture to decipher the ‘atmospheric’
signals contained in it even at a first hearing, e.g. as a generic
preparation for what follows and thus may raise corresponding expectations. While some kind of text-centred function is to be found in virtually all framings, since they, by definition, are related to the framed,
there are nevertheless different degrees of prominence of such textcentredness. The text-centred function of framing borders is thus their
most natural function, yet it is not the only possible function.
Given the tendency (in Genette as in the traditional evaluation of
pictorial frames) to over-stress the text-centred function of framing
elements, which are usually seen as completely subservient to the
main text and devoid of any independent value55, one should above all
emphasize the possibility of a self-centred function of framing devices56. This function is often transmitted through defamiliarized
framings (see below, my essay on “Defamiliarized Initial Framings in
Fiction”) and therefore especially frequent in experimental or metatextual artworks and/or texts. It may be observed wherever (elements of)
framings make more or less independent and prominent contributions
55 Cf., for the ‘subservient position of the picture frame’ (“die dienende Stellung des
Rahmens”), Simmel 1902/1922: 51, and Genette, who, in connection with the “aspect
fonctionnel”, calls a paratext emphatically “un discours fondamentalement hétéronome, auxiliaire, voué au service d’autre chose qui constitue sa raison d’être, et qui
est le texte” (1987: 16).
56 Zander 1996, in an interpretation of the paratexts in Tristram Shandy, has rightly
questioned Genette’s thesis of the almost absolute subserviency of the framing to the
framed text; a similar questioning is appropriate in discussions of the meta-aesthetic
function of frames often to be found in twentieth-century avant-garde painting (cf.
Brüderlin 1995 and Traber 1995); cf. for self-centred, defamiliarized literary framings
also my own contribution to this volume.
30
Werner Wolf
to the total meaning of a work (and thus take on an importance of their
own) or where they refer to themselves as framings (and thus become
self-reflexive). The latter case occurs, e.g., when framings are used to
‘foreground’ conventions of paratexts or constitute a space for
experimental ‘games’ as in postmodernist metaleptic ‘frame-breakings’ or ‘short-circuitings’ of narrative levels. Both the latter and the
former variant of the self-centred function of framings is nicely illustrated by Cornelis Norbertus Gijsbrechts’ Reverse Side of a Painting
(c. 1670-1675), which is reproduced on the cover of this volume
(albeit again turned 90 degrees). For this (painted) picture frame is at
the same time a playful meta-referential meditation on the convention
(and expectation) of framing pictures and the most important part of
the trompe-l’œil painting itself, which was exhibited without a wooden frame (see Stoichita 1993/1998: 308).
Another noteworthy function is the context-centred function.
Framings frequently not only mark the inside/outside border between
artefact and context (notably in pictorial framings and in the initial
and terminal framings of temporal artefacts), but also help to interpret
an artefact by creating a ‘bridge’ between its inside and its outside or
context57. This may be done by identifying the referential object of a
satire in a foreword or by giving information on intertextual frames of
reference, e.g. by “indicat[ing] a tie between [a] text and the literary
tradition” in an epigraph (Lanser 1981: 125).
Next comes the sender-centred function: the interpretive link, established by a framing, between the artefact and its ‘sender’ (author,
painter etc.) and/or the suggestion of his or her presence in the discursive exchange with the recipient. In some cases this function can also
be identified in the indication of certain intentions of the sender58.
57 Cf., with reference to literature, Frow 1982: 28: “[...] the contextual function of
the text at the ‘edge’ of the text indicates that the frame does not simply separate an
outside from an inside but mediates between the two.”
58 However, considering the well-known problematics of authorial intentions I
would not over-emphasize this function in the way Genette does, for whom the main
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
31
Generally, the sender-centred function is present in all framing “material through which the [recipient] can begin to construct an image of
the [sender’s] identity, beliefs and attitudes, intentions and goals”
(Lanser 1981: 124)59.
Finally, there is the recipient-centred function: it is a particularly
obvious interpretive aid and control and may be found in framings
containing appeals to the (potential) recipient (including recipients of
artefacts within artefacts), e.g. in advertisements of novels, concerts,
exhibitions etc., or also, in mimetic artefacts, in strategies building up
or undermining aesthetic illusion60.
It should be noted that all of these functions can be combined with,
or imply, a self-referential or even a meta-referential function: this
is perhaps most obvious with respect to the self-centred function
(especially in the variant where framings comment on themselves as
framings), and it should also be clear for the text-centred function, as
framings by definition imply meta-statements on the framed; but the
context-centred function can also be self-referential (e.g. if the
‘context’ is a literary text), and the same is true of the sender- and
recipient-centred functions (authors may, for instance, make aesthetic
statements in paratexts, and devices in framings that play with the
recipients’ aesthetic illusion obviously also serve a meta-function).
function of the paratexts (“[le] principal enjeu”) consists in the following: “assurer [au
texte] un sort conforme au dessein de l’auteur” (1987: 374).
59 The attribution of such elements of worldviews to senders outside the texts is,
however, a matter of debate. Alternatively, the (also debatable) notion of the ‘implied
author’ as being responsible for the ‘implied worldview’ could also apply, which
would then render these sender-related functions text-centred ones.
60 A famous example of a framing literary paratext intended to strengthen the
reader’s aesthetic illusion is the fiction of authenticity in the “Preface” to Robinson
Crusoe (1719); an equally famous contrary example for undermining aesthetic illusion is the passage “Before the Curtain” introducing the leading puppet-metaphor in
Thackeray’s Vanity Fair (1848). However, as in the case of the sender-centred functions (see preceding note), aspects of the recipient-centred functions could, through
the employment of the notion of the ‘implied reader’, also be classified as textual
functions.
32
Werner Wolf
The eighteen ensuing essays in this volume will substantiate both
the various forms of framings and some of their functions, which have
been outlined briefly in this introductory essay.
5. Perspectives for further research
In spite of the manifold aspects of framing as a transmedial phenomenon highlighted in this volume, I would like to repeat that only a few
of all possible or even desirable facets could be covered. Indeed, there
still remains a vast territory for future research. The following issues
would be of particular interest for research in the field:
1. a continuation of the interdisciplinary approach by including areas
not as yet dealt with, in particular, the performative arts including
the theatre61, moreover institutional, contextual framings such as
the architecture of exhibition buildings, concert halls, opera
houses, theatres etc.62; in this connection it would also be
interesting to extend the research of mise-en-abyme structures from
individual, already well-researched areas (such as tales within tales
or plays within plays63) to fields beyond literature, notably to films
within films, operas within operas etc., for in all of these cases, the
‘framing’ parts immediately preceding the framed parts regularly
show a high density of ‘framings’ in the sense employed in this
volume;
2. as a counterpart to the present concentration on initial framings in
temporal media, a focus on terminal framings from an intermedial
perspective would equally be desirable;
61 In this context one may also think of lyric poetry, in particular of longer forms
and their framings.
62 For a short exploration of “art galler[ies] as fram[ings]” see MacLachlan/Reid
1994: 31 f.
63 For plays within plays see Voigt 1954, Schmeling 1977 and 1982, Hornby 1986,
Vieweg-Marks 1989, and Maquerlot 1992; and for frame stories cf. Frow 1982, Seager 1991, Shryock 1993, Nelles 1997, Williams 1998, Stratman 2000, and Wolf 2005.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
33
3. a more systematic discussion of the historical development of
framings both within individual media and from an intermedial
perspective; even within the restricted field of a medium such as
literature (for which Genette, in his monograph on paratexts,
bracketed a historical perspective) a vast amount of research is still
required. A mere glance at some specific topics such as the “disappearance of the dedication” (Lanser 1981: 129) or the development of titles reveal significant changes that await further elucidation: the original titles of plays in Elizabethan times and of eighteenth-century novels tend to be much longer than their modern
counterparts, and modernist novels show a marked tendency to
‘suppress the frame’ by reducing framing elements64, while postmodernist narratives tend to foreground the framed quality of discourse and at the same time undermine the difference of text and
framing boundaries by multiplying or playing with framing. Generally speaking, historical questions such as the following should
be asked – and answered – in order to transcend the predominant
case-study or typological approach naturally privileged in a first
stage of research: In what periods are (particular) framings prominent? What forms do they have? What is their relationship with the
framed artefact(s)? What changes within framing conventions occur in the course of history? And what motivates such changes,
which may be significant for a period, a literary genre or a certain
aesthetic tradition?
As a precondition for approaching these desiderata one would wish
for an editing and reproduction culture in which framings, including
original framings, are not as frequently omitted as in many present
editions of literary texts (in many paperback editions, even those for
scholarly use, it is, for instance, not as yet the rule to reproduce all
64 Cf. already Furbank 1970, quoted in Hawthorn 1994: 75; Pearce 1975 extends
“the suppression of the frame” (48) to traditional novels in general. This generalization is certainly too undifferentiated but could be taken as a starting point for further
research.
34
Werner Wolf
original paratexts, including title pages and original frontispieces).
The same applies to reproductions of paintings in volumes of art history: here, too (unless one deals with monographs which particularly
focus on frames, such as Mendgen, ed. 1995), the reproduction of the
picture frame is regularly omitted and replaced by the white space of
the book page. One would equally wish, in some cases, for more detailed information on the framings of architectural works by their
immediate surroundings (gardens, public places, flights of stairs etc.)
in books on architecture.
In spite of all the desiderata which still remain, and given the limitations of the present volume, it is to be hoped that the reader will find
enough material to appreciate the contribution which a detailed analysis of framings can make to the understanding of works of literature
and other media. Although, as said at the beginning, all discursive
exchanges are framed, the framedness of artefacts is a special case
which calls for specific, mostly overt framings as well as for a particularly frequent employment of them. Investigating such framings
reveals considerably more about the artefacts themselves than one
would think at first glance, especially if one has tended to overlook
framings. It is hoped that the present volume will contribute to an
increased awareness of framings and reduce their neglect in the future.
References
Anderson, Joseph D. (1996). The Reality of Illusion: An Ecological
Approach to Cognitive Film Theory. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois Univ. Press.
Bal, Mieke (1980/1985). Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of
Narrative. Transl. Christine van Boheemen. Toronto: Univ. of
Toronto Press.
Barricelli, Jean-Pierre, Joseph Gibaldi, eds. (1982). Interrelations of
Literature. New York, NY: MLA.
Bateson, Gregory (1955/1972). “A Theory of Play and Fantasy”.
Gregory Bateson. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York, NY:
Ballantine. 177-193.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
35
Brüderlin, Markus (1995). “Der Rahmen will Bild werden: Das Rahmen (Kunst)Werk des 20. Jahrhunderts”. Mendgen, ed.: supplement 17-29.
Bruster, Douglas, Robert Weimann (2004). Prologues to Shakespeare’s Theatre: Performance and Liminality in Early Modern
Drama. London: Routledge.
Caws, Mary Ann (1985). Reading Frames in Modern Fiction.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Crystal, David (1987/1997). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of
Language. Cambridge: CUP. Second ed.
Culler, Jonathan (1988). Framing the Sign: Criticism and its Institutions. Norman, OK/London: Univ. of Oklahoma Press.
Derrida, Jacques (1978/1987). La Vérité en peinture. Paris: Flammarion. Truth in Painting. Transl. Geoff Bennington. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press.
Drew, Paul, Anthony Wootton, eds. (1987). Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interactional Order. Oxford: Polity Press.
Eco, Umberto (1977/1981). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in
the Semiotics of Texts. London: Hutchinson.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1976). “Frame Semantics and the Nature of
Language”. Stevan R. Harnad, Horst Dieter Steklis, J. Lancaster,
eds. Origins and Evolution of Language and Speech. Annals of the
New York Association of Sciences 280. New York, NY: New
York Academy of Sciences. 20-32.
Fishman Summerfield, Judith (1986). “Framing Narratives”. Thomas
Newkirk, ed. Only Connect: Uniting Reading and Writing. Upper
Montclair, NJ: Boynton. 227-240.
Fludernik, Monika (1993). The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The Linguistic Representation of Speech and
Consciousness. London: Routledge.
Frow, John (1982). “The Literary Frame”. Journal of Aesthetic Education 18/2: 25-30.
Furbank, Philip Nicholas (1970). Reflections on the Word ‘Image’.
London: Secker and Warburg.
Genette, Gérard (1987). Seuils. Collection ‘Poétique’. Paris: Seuil.
Gibson, Andrew (1996). Towards a Postmodern Theory of Narrative.
Postmodern Theory. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.
Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard Univ. Press.
36
Werner Wolf
Hamon, Philippe (1977). “Texte littéraire et métalangage”. Poétique
8/31: 261-284.
Hawthorn, Jeremy (1994). A Concise Glossary of Contemporary
Literary Theory. London: Edward Arnold. Second ed.
Helbig, Jörg, ed. (1998). Intermedialität: Theorie und Praxis eines
interdisziplinären Forschungsgebiets. Berlin: Schmidt.
Hornby, Richard (1986). Drama, Metadrama, and Perception. London: Associated Univ. Presses.
Hrushovsky, Benjamin (1984). “Poetic Metaphor and Frames of
Reference”. Poetics Today 5: 5-43.
Iser, Wolfgang (1975). “Die Wirklichkeit der Fiktion: Elemente eines
funktionsgeschichtlichen Textmodells”. Rainer Warning, ed. Rezeptionsästhetik: Theorie und Praxis. Munich: Fink. 277-324.
Jakobson, Roman (1960). “Closing Statement: Linguistics and
Poetics”. Thomas A. Sebeok, ed. Style in Language. Cambridge,
MA: M.I.T. Press. 350-377.
Lagerroth, Ulla-Britta, Hans Lund, Erik Hedling, eds. (1997). Interart
Poetics: Essays on the Interrelations of the Arts and Media. Internationale Forschungen zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft 24. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lanser, Susan Sniader (1981). The Narrative Act: Point of View in
Prose Fiction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Larroux, Guy (1994). “Mise en cadre et clausularité”. Poétique 25:
247-253.
Lotman, Jurij (1970/1977). The Structure of the Artistic Text. Michigan Slavic Contributions. Transl. Gail Lenhoff, Ronald Vroon.
Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press.
MacLachlan, Gale, Ian Reid (1994). Framing and Interpretation.
Interpretations. Melbourne: Melbourne Univ. Press.
McHale, Brian (1987). Postmodernist Fiction. London: Routledge.
Maquerlot, Jean-Pierre (1992). “Playing Within the Play: Towards a
Semiotics of Metadrama and Metatheatre”. François Laroque, ed.
The Show Within: Dramatic and Other Insets: English Renaissance Drama (1550-1642). Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Montpellier, 22-25 November, 1990. Montpellier:
Univ. Paul-Valéry-Montpellier III. 39-49.
Mendgen, Eva, ed. (1995). In Perfect Harmony: Bild und Rahmen
1850-1920. Amsterdam: Van Gogh Museum/Vienna: Kunstforum
Wien.
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
37
Minsky, Marvin (1975). “A Framework for Representing Knowledge”. Patrick H. Winston, ed. The Psychology of Computer
Vision. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. 211-277.
Müller, Klaus (1984). Rahmenanalyse des Dialogs: Aspekte des
Sprachverstehens in Alltagssituationen. Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 232. Tübingen: Narr.
Müske, Eberhard (1992). Diskurssemiotik: Zur funktionellen Integration des Frame-Konzepts in ein dynamisches Modell literarischkünstlerischer Texte. Stuttgarter Arbeiten zur Germanistik 264.
Stuttgart: Heinz.
Nelles, William (1997). Frameworks: Narrative Levels and Embedded
Narrative. American University Studies 19: General Literature 33.
New York, NY: Lang.
Nünning, Ansgar, ed. (1997/2004). Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und
Kulturtheorie. Third ed. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Pearce, Richard (1975). “Enter the Frame”. Raymond Federman, ed.
Surfiction: Fiction Now ... and Tomorrow. Chicago, IL: Swallow
Press. 47-57.
Pearse, James A. (1980). “Beyond the Narrational Frame: Interpretation and Metafiction”. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 73-84.
Pearson, John H. (1990). “The Politics of Framing in the Late Nineteenth Century”. Mosaic 23: 15-30.
Prince, Gerald (1987). A Dictionary of Narratology. Aldershot: Scolar
Press.
Rajewsky, Irina O. (2002). Intermedialität. UTB 2261. Tübingen:
Francke.
Reid, Ian (1992). Narrative Exchanges. London: Routledge.
Ricardou, Jean (1978). Le Nouveau roman. Ecrivains de toujours.
Paris: Seuil.
Rumelhart, David E. (1980). “Schemata: The Building Blocks of
Cognition”. Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, William F. Brewer,
eds. Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension: Perspectives
from Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Artificial Intelligence, and
Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schmeling, Manfred (1977). Das Spiel im Spiel: Ein Beitrag zur vergleichenden Literaturkritik. Deutsche und vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft 3. Rheinfelden: Schäuble.
— (1982). Métathéâtre et intertexte: Aspects du théâtre dans le théâtre. Archives de lettres modernes 204. Paris: Lettres Modernes.
38
Werner Wolf
Schwanitz, Dietrich (1990). Systemtheorie und Literatur: Ein neues
Paradigma. WV Studium 157. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Schweikle, Günther, Irmgard Schweikle, eds. (1990). Metzler Literaturlexikon: Begriffe und Definitionen. Stuttgart: Metzler. Second
ed.
Seager, Dennis L. (1991). Stories Within Stories: An Ecosystemic
Theory of Metadiegetic Narrative. New York, NY: Lang.
Semino, Elena (1997). Language and World Creation in Poems and
Other Texts. Textual Explorations. London: Longman.
Shakespeare, William (1997). The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen
Greenblatt. New York, NY: Norton.
Shryock, Richard (1993). Tales of Storytelling: Embedded Narrative
in Modern French Fiction. American University Studies 2: Romance Languages and Literatures 206. New York, NY: Lang.
Simmel, Georg (1902/1922). “Der Bildrahmen”. Georg Simmel. Zur
Philosophie der Kunst: Philosophische und kunstphilosophische
Aufsätze. Ed. Gertrud Simmel. Potsdam: Kiepenhauer. 46-54.
Stoichita, Victor I. (1993/1998). L’Instauration du tableau. Paris:
Klincksieck. Das selbstbewußte Bild: Vom Ursprung der Metamalerei. Bild und Text. Transl. Heinz Jatho. Munich: Finck.
Stratmann, Gerrit (2000). Rahmenerzählungen der Moderne: Situation
und Gestaltung einer Erzählform zwischen 1893 und 1928. Marburg: Tectum.
Tannen, Deborah, ed. (1993). Framing in Discourse. New York:
OUP.
— (1993a). “Introduction”. Tannen, ed.: 3-13.
— (1993b). “What’s in a Frame? Surface Evidence for Underlying
Expectation”. Tannen, ed.: 14-56.
Traber, Christine (1995). “In Perfect Harmony? Entgrenzungen in der
Kunst des frühen 20. Jahrhunderts”. Mendgen, ed.: 221-248.
Träger, Claus, ed. (1986). Wörterbuch der Literaturwissenschaft.
Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.
Vieweg-Marks, Karin (1989). Metadrama und englisches Gegenwartsdrama. Literarische Studien 1. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Voigt, Joachim (1954). Das Spiel im Spiel: Versuch einer Formbestimmung an Beispielen aus dem deutschen, englischen und spanischen Drama. PhD Dissertation, Univ. of Göttingen.
Warning, Rainer (1983). “Der inszenierte Diskurs: Bemerkungen zur
pragmatischen Relation der Fiktion”. Dieter Henrich, Wolfgang
Introduction: Frames, Framings and Framing Borders
39
Iser, eds. Funktionen des Fiktiven. Poetik und Hermeneutik 10.
Munich: Fink. 83-206.
Waugh, Patricia (1984). Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of SelfConscious Fiction. New Accents. London: Methuen.
Weinrich, Harald (1971). “Kommunikative Literaturwissenschaft”.
Harald Weinrich. Literatur für Leser: Essays und Aufsätze zur
Literaturwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. 1-7.
Williams, Jeffrey (1998). Theory and the Novel: Narrative Reflexivity
in the British Tradition. Cambridge: CUP.
Wilpert, Gero von (1969). Sachwörterbuch der Literatur. Stuttgart:
Kröner. Fifth ed.
Winograd, Terry (1974). “A Framework for Understanding Discourse”. Marcel Adam Just, Patricia A. Carpenter, eds. Cognitive
Processes in Comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
63-88.
Wolf, Werner (1999a). “Framing Fiction. Reflections on a Narratological Concept and an Example: Bradbury, Mensonge”. Walter
Grünzweig, Andreas Solbach, eds. Grenzüberschreitungen: Narratologie im Kontext/Transcending Boundaries: Narratology in Context. Tübingen: Narr. 97-124.
— (1999b). The Musicalization of Fiction: A Study in the Theory and
History of Intermediality. Internationale Forschungen zur allgemeinen und vergleichenden Literaturwissenschaft 35. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
— (2001). “Formen literarischer Selbstreferenz in der Erzählkunst:
Versuch einer Typologie und ein Exkurs zur ‘mise en cadre’ und
‘mise en reflet/série’”. Jörg Helbig, ed. Erzählen und Erzähltheorie
im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert: Festschrift für Wilhelm Füger. Heidelberg: Winter. 49-84.
— (2002). “Intermediality Revisited: Reflections on Word and Music
Relations in the Context of a General Typology of Intermediality”.
Suzanne M. Lodato, Suzanne Aspden, Walter Bernhart, eds. Word
and Music Studies: Essays in Honor of Steven Paul Scher and on
Cultural Identity and the Musical Stage. Word and Music Studies
4. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 13-34.
— (2005). “Rahmenerzählung”. Gert Ueding, ed. Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik 7. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 560-566.
— (forthcoming). “Der Prolog als traditionelle Form dramatischer Anfangsrahmung: Probleme der Definition und der Funktionsgeschichte im englischen Drama des 19. Jahrhunderts”. Doris
40
Werner Wolf
Mader, Maria Löschnigg, Hugo Keiper, eds. Metamorphosen: Englische Literatur und die Tradition. Anglistische Forschungen. Heidelberg: Winter.
Young, Katharine (2004). “Frame and Boundary in the Phenomenology of Narrative”. Marie-Laure Ryan, ed. Narrative Across Media:
The Languages of Storytelling. Lincoln, NE: Univ. of Nebraska
Press. 76-107.
Zaloscer, Hilde (1974). “Versuch einer Phänomenologie des Rahmens”. Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft
19: 189-224.
Zander, Horst (1996). “‘Non enim adjectio haec ejus, sed opus ipsum
est’: Überlegungen zum Paratext in Tristram Shandy”. Poetica 28:
132-153.
Zima, Peter V., ed. (1995). Literatur intermedial: Musik – Malerei –
Photographie – Film. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.