Nick Enfield

Frame/content

MacNeilage’s recent book ‘The origin of speech’ argues in favor of a ‘frame/content’ theory of syllable structure. (He has argued for this for years.) The terms are from Levelt. The idea is simply that the syllable is first a frame, a space within which content may be fleshed out more language-specifically. It’s more or less what can be argued (though not with complete analogy) for the relation between utterances and clauses. The utterance is a frame (as may be filled, for example, by something with no internal structure such as an interjection), and its content is whatever composite structures are being used (syntax, gestures, etc.). See The Anatomy of Meaning (CUP, 2009) for a similar idea, but not using this terminology.

I wonder whether the frame/content idea is equal to the idea of incorporation as defined by Paul Kockelman in his 2006 article ‘Residence in the world’ (Semiotica). It looks this way when we get into MacNeilage’s treatment of memes (pp309ff). I fear that the frame/content idea can go to all manner of levels of grain (as for the move/clause idea); the critical anchor on it has to be an independent argument for the ‘basic-level’ status of just that frame. Note that the syllable (MacNeilage’s ‘frame’) becomes in turn part of the content of a larger frame. It’s the core idea of the entire Item/System approach.