This thesis has a preliminary aim of situating framing within the pragma-dialectical framework.
Subsequent to this, the research question I aimed to answer is: How can framing be considered a strategic maneuver within the pragma-dialectical framework? In answering this question, I believe to have aided in the conceptualisation of framing as an object, and more importantly as a process.
As identified in Chapter 2.1, the conceptualisation of framing as an object has received the most attention by scholars. Although such conceptualisation are inconsistent, we can come to terms with them by considering them as different ‘types’ of framing. This is an important proposition as it accommodates the scope of framing. Throughout the process of writing this thesis I have come to realise that framing is ambiguous because it is used in a variety of different ways, all of which claim to represent its true form. This does not aid its comprehension and in fact hampers the progression of the phenomenon with regards to its possible use in other communicative contexts. A better way to conceptualise the notion is by incorporating all insights into a classification of different types of framing. By doing so, we can value all definitions and appreciate framing for what it is: a vast phenomenon that manipulates’ people’s preferences, and the way in which they look upon situations. In Chapter 2 I identified three types of framing. The first is equivalency framing. Equivalency framing works by manipulating the presentation of logically equivalent information. By changing key words, two logically equivalent sentences are framed in vastly different ways, ultimately resulting in the manipulation of an individual’s preferences. From here, there are sub-types of equivalency framing, namely framing that manipulates logically equivalent information in order to manipulate a person’s evaluative preferences. Additionally, there is interesting research on the framing of survey questions. This involves logically equivalent information that is framed in different ways to influence a respondent’s survey answers (Bartels, 1998; Lacy, 1997; Zaller, 1992). Secondly, emphasis frames were identified as another type of framing. Emphasis frames work on a passive accessibility process, in which the salience of certain information influences the way in which a person perceives a situation. It is noted that media framing is considered to be a sub-type of emphasis framing as it relies on the process of making certain information salient. Thirdly, goal-frames are identified as a type of framing. Via pragmatic argumentation an arguer is able to frame a situation in either a positive or negative light by emphasizing the consequences of a prescribed action.
In addition to the different types of framing, Chapter 2 found that an important consensus exists amongst scholars. The consensus relates to the way in which framing psychological influences a person’s understanding of a situation via a manipulation of the text. As such, it is valuable to consider the psychological and communicative dimension to framing. The communicative dimension lacks the presence of a theoretical apparatus in which to analyze the construction of a frame. Such is the reason for my attempt at incorporating framing into the pragma-dialectical framework. Following the literature review, I selected emphasis framing as my focus going forward. Emphasis framing is the most ambiguous type of all three frames and as such can benefit most from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.
The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is beneficial to the analysis of framing because it establishes a large theoretical framework that enables the analyst to apply theoretical considerations to argumentative reality. Most importantly, the three aspects of strategic maneuvering enable an understanding of framing as an overarching communicative phenomenon. It is overarching because a frame is developed when there is a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers. A vertical and horizontal level of convergence develops a discussion strategy. Such strategies have been found to develop in specific discussion stages or throughout the entire discussion. I propose in this thesis that such discussion strategies can manifest as frames. In Chapter 3, I demonstrate how a frame correlates to confrontational strategies, opening strategies, argumentational strategies and concluding strategies through an analysis of small case studies.
In Chapter 4, I continue to demonstrate my hypothesis by conducting an extended analysis of the KLM press release. This extended analysis demonstrates how an overarching frame is constructed throughout the entirety of the discussion, much like an overarching discussion strategy. This analysis is aided by the consideration of the following parameters: the results, the routes, the constraints, and the commitments. By considering such factors, the analyst is able to identify the function of the strategic maneuvers. This function is in line with the frame of the text. Essentially, the function of the frame resembles the function of the coordinated set of strategic maneuvers.
Framing has a long history in the field of communication, and it deserves its popularity as it is a very powerful phenomenon. Its ability to manipulate the way we perceive everyday situations is fascinating and worthy of continued study. Given its significance as an effective rhetorical technique, framing deserves a better conceptualization and theoretical foundation.
My aim for this thesis was to award it a better theoretical foundation by situating it within the pragma-dialectical framework and incorporate it into the process of strategic maneuvering. I
believe I have delivered on this aim. I have demonstrated how framing can be considered part and parcel with coordinated strategic maneuvers and discussion strategies.
There are limits to this research as framing remains a largely ambiguous concept. Future research should explore the classification of the different types of frames. The notion of framing would benefit from an in-depth classification that could distinguish between the various conceptualizations. For instance, are there other types of frames that have not been identified here? Following this, it would be interesting to study the ways in which other types of frames may be incorporated into the pragma-dialectical framework. Do equivalency frames and goal-frames manifest the same way as emphasis frames, via a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers? If so, are there any subtle differences or is it an identical process? In addition, given the power of discussion strategies, it would be interesting to conduct further research in order to develop a better classification of discussion strategies. In doing so, the connection between emphasis frames and discussion strategies can be further explored.
This thesis set out to situate framing as a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers. In doing so it has demonstrated that there is a strong correlation between emphasis frames and discussion strategies. As research continues to develop, I wonder whether framing will succumb to increasing disdain, or whether its rhetorical power will result in the awe it deserves.
REFERENCE LIST
Bartels, L. M. (1998). Democracy with attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, September 3–6.
Block, L. G. and Keller, P. A. (1995). When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-related Behavior.
Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192–203. ISSN: 0022-2437. EISSN: 1547-7193. DOI:
10.2307/3152047
Druckman, J. N. (2001). The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.
Political Behavior, 23 (3), 225-256. ISSN: 0190-9320.
Eemeren, F. H. van and Henkemans, A. F. S. (2016). Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation. (2nd ed.). Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. ISBN: 978-1-138-22508-4.
Eemeren, F. H. van; Garssen, B; Verheij, B; Krabbe, E. C. W; Henkemans, A; Wagemans, J.
H.M. (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. ISBN:
9789048194728.
Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. ISBN: 9789027211194.
Eemeren, F. H. van. and Houtlosser, P. (2002). Advances in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam:
Sic Sat Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of
argumentative discourse. An interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 6 (1), 1-16.
ISSN: 0165-4888.
Eemeren, F. H. van. (1990). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. An interdisciplinary journal for the study of discourse, 10 (1). 37-44. ISSN: 0165-4888.
Entman, M. R. (1991). Framing U.S Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents. Journal of Communication, 41 (4), 6-27.
Entman, M. R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58.
https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2018/POL256/um/Entman_1993_FramingTowardclarificati onOfAFracturedParadigm.pdf
Entman, R. M., & Rojecki, A. (1993). Freezing out the public: Elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication, 10(2), 151-167. ISSN: 1058-4609.
EISSN: 1091-7675. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.1993.9962973.
Fiske, S. and Kinder, D. (1981) Involvement, Expertise, and Schemata Use: Evidence from Political Cognition. In Personality, Cognition and Social Interaction, 176-181.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R.
G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology, 3, 137-177.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gamson, W. A. and Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R.
G. Braungart and Braungart, M.M, Research in political sociology ,3, 137-177. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Gamson, W. and Modigliani, A. (1989). Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructivist Approach. The American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1), 1-37. ISSN:
0002-9602. EISSN: 1537-5390. DOI: 10.1086/229213.
Gamson, W. (1975). Reviewed Work(s): Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. Contemporary Sociology, 4 (6), 603-607. DOI:10.2307/2064022.
Gitlin, T (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN : 0520038894.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of Experience. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. ISBN: 9780061319617
Graber, D.A. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide (2nd ed.).
New York: Longman. ISBN: 0801300479.
Haider-Markel, D. P. and Joslyn, M.R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics 63, 520–543. ISSN:
0022-3816. EISSN: 1468-2508. DOI: 10.1111/0022-3816.00077.
Hartland, N. G. (1994). Goffman’s Attitude and Social Analysis. Human Studies, 17(2), 251–
266. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01323604
Hill, F. (2003). Aristotle’s Rhetorical Theory. With a Synopsis of Aristotle’s Rhetoric.
Published by Routlidge. Ebook: ISBN 9781410607492.
Kinder, D.R. and Sanders, L.M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions:
the case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Social Cognition 8, 73–103.
Kuypers, J. A. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: perspectives in action. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN: 9780739127735.
Lacy, D. (1997). A theory of non-separable preferences in survey responses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Methodology Society, Columbus, Ohio, July.
Levin, I.P; Schneider, S.L; and Gaeth, G.J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76, 149–188. ISSN: 0749-5978. EISSN: 1095-9920. DOI:
10.1006/obhd.1998.2804.
Manning, P. (1992). Erving Goffman and modern sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN:
0745608523.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G.
Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, 1, 137-230. New York:
Random House.
Meyerowitz, B. E and Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Journal of personality and social psychology, 52 (3), 500-510. ISSN: 0022-3514. EISSN: 1939-1315. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse.
Political Communication. 10, 55-75. ISSN: 1058-4609. EISSN: 1091-7675. DOI:
10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963.
Perelman, C. H. and Olbrechts-Tyteca. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
Poppel, L. van. (2012). The strategic function of variants of pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 97-112. John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: 10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop. ISSN: 2211–4742. E-ISSN: 2211–4750.
Poppel, L. van. (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. PhD Thesis. University of Amsterdam. ISBN: 9789082128703.
Quattrone, G. and Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82 (3), 719–736. ISSN: 0003-0554.
EISSN: 1537-5943. DOI: 10.2307/1962487.
Rees, van; Houtlosser, M.A; Eemeren, F. van (2006). Strategic maneuvering with
dissociation. Argumentation, 20 (4), 473-487. ISSN: 0920-427X. EISSN: 1572-8374. DOI:
10.1007/s10503-007-9024-4.
Rothman, A. J. and Salovey, R. (1997). Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior:
The Role of Message-framing. Psychological Bulletin 121(1), 3–19. ISSN: 0033-2909.
EISSN: 1939-1455. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. In Wyer, R.S and Srull, T.K, Handbook of Social Cognition, 161-188. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum. ISBN: 0898593379.
Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum. ISBN: 0470990333.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297–316.
ISSN: 1520-5436. EISSN: 1532-7825. DOI: 10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07.
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation.
American Journal of Sociology 98(1), 1–29. ISSN: 0002-9602. EISSN: 1537-5390. DOI:
10.1086/229967.
Sniderman, P. M. and Theriault, S. M. (1999). The dynamics of political argument and the logic of issue framing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 15–17.
Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news. New York: Free Press.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. ISSN: 0036-8075. EISSN: 1095-9203. DOI:
10.1126/science.7455683.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1987). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In Robin M. Hogarth and Melvin W. Reder (eds.), Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology, 67–94. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN:
0226348571.
Valinciute, A. (2013). Applying the pragma-dialectical theory to framing analysis: A new approach and method. MA Discourse and Argumentation Studies. University of Amsterdam.
Weaver, D.H. (2007). Thoughts on Agenda Setting, Framing, and Priming. Journal of Communication, (57), 142-147. DIO:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00333.x.
Zaller, John (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, 261–274. New York:
Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 1-139-63574-3.
APPENDIX
1
5
10
15
20
25