Page 94 - Communication Theory and Research

McQuail(EJC)-3281-06.qxd 8/16/2005 11:59 AM Page 80

80 Communication Theory & Research
were attributed with extreme scores on comic characteristics. Here the comic
effect (characteristic 8) not only worked meaningfully in relation to this intelli-
gence code (r = −0.519), but also in connection with social (characteristic 2;
r = 0.861) and moral codes (characteristic 12; r = 0.868). This type of strong
correlation was not evident during the decoding of the US fiction programme.
The intelligence (r =−0.079), social (r = 0.330) and moral (r =−0.157) codes were
not strongly correlated with the comic code. In the case of the domestic comedy
these and other codes were important in creating the comic effect of the pro-
gramme, while in the American sitcom this important effect was experienced in
a quite linear, less complex manner.
Such major differences in the interpretation of both sitcoms cannot be derived
on a convincing basis from a textual analysis: both programmes as texts seem to
generate the comic effects by an interplay of extreme characteristics on several
levels.

Discussion

When the recipients recognize the character and their actions (literal compre-
hension) and interpret the different dimensions in them (inferential comprehen-
sion), one can question how they discuss or ‘apply’ the programmes to their own
lives: how they relate both programmes to their own experiences? Were they
involved differently? What differences can be made here between both types of
‘encounters’?
Here an open, unstructured in-depth interview was the appropriate method:
during the interview phase the respondent could discuss the programme and his
or her experience of it. The analysis of the transcripts of these interviews was
inspired by the studies of Katz and Liebes on the decoding of Dallas. Central to
this approach was the study of patterns of involvement. To treat such a complex
concept as ‘involvement’ the different statements have to be systematically
analysed, using different indicators, focused on ‘how viewers discuss’ fiction
programmes (Liebes and Katz, 1986: 152).

Referential vs. Meta-Linguistic Frame

A first important category of the analysis of the interview material is the
distinction between referential and meta-linguistic frames. In referential statements
the recipients treat (see Katz and Liebes, 1986) the programme as applicable to
real life, whereas in meta-linguistic ones they consider it as a fictional construc-
tion with specific aesthetic law and formulae. For Katz and Liebes referential
decodings primarily imply a more emotionally involved attitude of the recipient.
Meta-linguistic statements, on the contrary, are to be considered as more distant
and critical. An example of this type can be found during an interview with a
45-year-old school teacher: