<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="T78-1027">
  <Title>WITH A SPOON IN HAND THIS MUST BE THE EATING FRAME</Title>
  <Section position="13" start_page="191" end_page="191" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
7 CONCLUSION
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> There is, of course, much I have not covered.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The most glaring ommision is the lack of any discussion of how one detects a discrepency between a suggested frame and what we already know of the story. The problem is that a frame cannot afford to mention everything which is incomparable with it - there is simply too much. And the same is true for everything which is comparable.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Furthermore, what would be enough to switch to a new frame under some circumstances would not be sufficient at other times. So &amp;quot;Jack walked down the isle and picked up a can of tunafish&amp;quot; takes us from CHURCH to SUPERMARKET. But if we added &amp;quot;from a pew&amp;quot; things are different. These are major problems and aside from (McDermott 72) and (Collins et. al. forthcomming) they have hardly been confronted, much less solved.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>