Viewing frame

In viewing a scene I may take a more distant or a closer position giving me a wider or more restricted viewing frame. Imagine the scene of a train travelling from Norwich to Peterborough. An observer looking at the scene from an aeroplane has a maximal viewing frame: she has the whole train route in her view, including its termini in the two cities and the surroundings. We also have a maximal viewing frame of the train route when we study a map of the railway network and trace the connection between the two towns with our finger. When travelling on the train, however, the view from the window of our compartment only lets us see that part of the route which we are passing at any given moment. The endpoints of the section fall outside the viewing frame, even though of course we know that the train journey has a beginning and an end. We now have a restricted viewing frame (means seeing only part of the scene).

These two viewing situations are evoked by the grammatical structures used in sentences:

a. This train goes from Norwich to Peterborough.

b. This train is going from Norwich to Peterborough.

The use of the non-progressive in sentence (a) makes us see in our mind the whole route and schedule of the train in the British railway network; it is a construal which provides a maximal viewing frame of a scene. The use of the progressive aspect in sentence (b), by contrast, only lets us see part of the scene: it is a construal which provides a restricted viewing frame.

So, our visual apparatus limits what we can see at any one time. Experientially, we have a restricted “viewing frame”—the visual field—delimiting what we can visually encompass when “looking out” at the world. At any one instant, only a limited portion of our spatial surroundings falls within the scope of vision.

2) Generality (schematicity) vs specificity

The notions of generality and specificity relate to the degree of precision and detail with which a scene is viewed or conceived or at which a situation is characterized. A distant view normally gives us a general impression of a scene while a close view or the use of a microscope or binoculars enables us to discern indepth details. In cognition and language, taxonomic hierarchies reflect different levels of generality and specificity. By using higher-level categories, the speaker construes a situation in a more general way; by using lower-level categories, the speaker construes the situation in a more specific way. Let’s study the examples:

a. Several vehicles collided on High Street last night. (vehicles – most general reference)

b. Most of the cars drove way too fast. (car – basic-level term)

c. A Mitsubishi struck another car. (Mitsubishi – more specific)

d. The Ferrari 612 was driven by a drunk driver.

e. The yellow VW Convertible was sandwiched between two lorries.

As with all construals, each of the alternative ways of expression has its own contextual meaning. Thus, the superordinate term vehicle in (a) might be used by the Department for Transport or found in traffic reports. Basic-level terms such as car are used to describe situations in the most usual and common way as in (b). Subordinate terms like Mitsubishi or Ferrari 612 might be used by automobile experts like mechanics or car fanatics. The same thing may thus be “seen” in different detail by different people and in different situations. Count and mass nouns also present different degree generality/specificity. Their distinction is based on the experience of size: larger-sized pieces are categorised as count nouns and smaller-sized pieces as mass nouns. Count nouns may be pluralised, as in ten gold nuggets, while mass nouns cannot be counted, as in *ten gold dusts.

3) viewpoint – a point from which we look at the scene, where the observer is positioned. In cognition we may also adopt another person’s point of view. For example, the same newly published book may be announced as a new release or a new arrival. The difference between these two expressions resides in the different viewpoints adopted. In using the term new release, we take the publisher’s point of view, whereas in using the term new arrival we take the bookseller’s point of view.

In this way, the publisher and the bookseller will produce different utterances:

a. Publisher: “Have we sent out the new releases?”

b. Bookseller: “Have we displayed the new arrivals?”

We typically look at the world and describe it from our viewpoint. A good illustration of this is found in arguments such as in the following example, in which two children give their own versions of the same event:

Bill: “Mum! Joe tripped me up with his foot.”

Joe: “No I didn’t, Mum! Bill just tripped over my foot.”

Some expressions have a built-in viewpoint on a situation. The motion verbs come and go as well as bring and take inherently adopt the speaker’s viewpoint and designate motion towards or away from the speaker, respectively. Verbs like come and go, whose usage is dependent on the speech situation, are known as deictic verbs (Greek deiktikos from deiknynai ‘show, point’. Compare the following sentences:

a. My parents are coming to my graduation.

b. I’m going to my sister’s graduation.

If the motion is directed towards the speaker as the goal as in (a), the speaker’s viewpoint is typically described by using the verb come. If the speaker is not the goal of motion as in (b), where motion is directed away from the speaker’s location, the verb go is used. These two sentences thus take the speaker’s point of view, i.e. the speaker is the deictic centre.

If the hearer is mentioned, we have two options. In using go as in sentence (a. I’m going to your graduation) the speaker keeps her own viewpoint relative to the hearer. This construal sounds neutral, or under certain circumstances almost threatening, for example when I am known for misbehaving at official celebrations. The speaker may, however, also mentally switch her viewpoint as in sentence (b. I’m coming to your graduation).

In using come in sentence (b), the speaker takes the hearer’s viewpoint, i.e. the hearer becomes the deictic centre. This is, of course, not possible in perception: we cannot take any other viewpoint but our own. In our conception of a scene and its expression in language, however, we may put ourselves into someone else’s position, and we mainly do so because this has the effect of sounding sympathetic and polite. We’ve discussed speaker-centred and hear-centred viewpoint.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11