The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation and Framing

Having established an overview of pragma-dialectics and strategic maneuvering, I turn now to the notion of framing in pragma-dialectics. The question I aim to answer in this chapter is, how has the notion of framing been dealt with so far in pragma-dialectics? And, what are the elements of pragma-dialectics that are beneficial to the analysis of framing?

As I have noted in Chapter 2.1.2.3, when discussing the art of framing, pragma-dialectical scholars have largely focused on the gain and loss-frames, particularly in the domain of health communication. There are some interesting insights that have emerged, demonstrating how

framing is viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. By way of example, Van Poppel equates framing to the way in which argumentation is “designed” (van Poppel, 2013, p. 38).

The notion that framing ‘designs’ our argumentation is a fitting description and we can apply this to framing and strategic maneuvering. When we analyse a protagonist’s argumentation using strategic maneuvering, we can see how they have strategically designed their argumentation to best persuade their audience of their standpoint. As such, we can make an initial connection here between framing and strategic maneuvering. Delving deeper, van Poppel describes this connection between framing and strategic maneuvering in more detail:

In terms of strategic maneuvering, framing can thus be seen as a way to appeal to a specific audience via a combination of particular choices from the topical potential, namely referring to a desirable effect to be gained or a desirable effect to be lost, and certain presentational devices evoking either a positive or a negative association (van Poppel, 2013, p. 40).

Van Poppel’s insights are intriguing as they spark the beginning of a conversation about how we might integrate framing into the pragma-dialectical framework. This integration would benefit the conceptualisation of framing immensely as pragma-dialectics provides the theoretical and analytical foundations to develop framing into a fully-formed and well defined concept. I propose that we integrate framing into the pragma-dialectical framework by demonstrating how framing can be considered as a strategic maneuver. This has yet to be achieved by scholars studying the notion of framing. I must however acknowledge here an MA thesis written by Valinciute in 2013 which takes a similar approach. This is an encouraging paper as it aims to integrate framing into the pragma-dialectical framework. However, there is a significant difference between our approaches. Valincuite focuses largely on Entman’s framing functions as the core method of connecting framing to pragma-dialectics. By doing so, Valincuite is limited by a narrow definition of framing. Additionally, while Valincuite’s theoretical aims are similar to my own, we differ in our approach to framing and strategic maneuvering. For Valincuite, strategic maneuvering is an analytical tool used to identify frames. I hypothesise that framing can be considered a strategic maneuver. Frames can be selections from the topical potential, they can be adaptations to audience demand, and they can be presentational devices. And of course, frames can be a combination of the three. Therefore, there are significant differences between both papers. In this paper, I connect framing to pragma-dialectics by equating framing to the coordination of strategic maneuvers and discussion strategies. This is explained in further detail below.

A second connection between framing and strategic maneuvering can be found when looking at Entman’s framing locations (1993). As noted in chapter 2, Entman offers four emphasis framing locations: the communicator, the text, the receiver, and the culture. As stated in chapter 2, I propose to interpret the locations as a step by step process of constructing a frame. When looking at framing and pragma-dialectics, further insights can be gained that point to a natural connection between framing and strategic maneuvering. According to Entman, the communicator makes “conscious or unconscious framing judgements in deciding what to say, guided by frames (often called schemata) that organise belief systems” (Entman 1993, p. 52).

When looking at framing with a pragma-dialectical approach, it appears we can easily equate the function of the communicator to the selection from the topical selection. When an arguer is selecting from the topical potential, they are choosing to advance arguments that are rhetorically effective. While this does not apply to the “unconscious” element of the communicator location, there does appear to be a connection between the “conscious

…framing judgements in deciding what to say” (Entman 1992, p. 52). We can therefore conclude that the function of the communicator location has similarities to the selection from the topical potential. The connection to strategic maneuvering continues in the second framing location, the text. Entman states that the text “contains frames, which are manifested by the presence or absence of certain key words, stock phrases and stereotypes, images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgements” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). This framing location correlates to the exploitation of presentational devices, where the arguer strategically manipulates “the presence or absence of certain key words, stock phrases and stereotypes, images, sources of information, and sentences” Entman, 1993, p. 52). Thus, framing at the level of the text largely involves an exploitation of presentational devices. To continue this pattern, I proceed to the third framing location, the receiver. Entman understands this location to concern a receivers thinking and the frames that guide such thinking. When looking at the similarities to strategic maneuvering, the location of the receiver correlates slightly to the way in which the audience responds to the maneuvers of the arguers. We can therefore conclude that framing at the receiver level correlates to the strategic adaptation to audience demand. With regards to Entman’s last framing location, culture, it becomes difficult here to equate it directly to one aspect of strategic maneuvering. As has been noted above, Entman’s culture is best understood as a connection between the text and the receiver. A text relays the information that was chosen by the communicator and in doing so consults “the stock of most commonly invoked frames” in order to best influence the receiver. This cultural guide therefore helps the author to select the frames

that can influence the “thinking of most people in the social grouping” (Entman, 1993, p. 53).

When thinking of this location’s connection to strategic maneuvering, it is possible to correlate culture to all three aspects of strategic maneuvering. It plays to the audience demand by invoking culturally significant frames. In turn, this makes the frame more effective, which is a strategic selection from the topical potential. Finally, an exploitation of presentational devices is always possible through the strategic manipulation of words.

As stated above, my method of incorporating framing into the pragma-dialectical framework relies on the coordination of strategic maneuvering and the subsequent development of a discussion strategy. This process involves an analysis of the strategic maneuvers which takes into account van Eemeren’s (2010) four parameters. Van Eemeren advises that by taking into account the following four parameters, the strategic function of each maneuver can be identified: the results, the routes, the constraints, and the commitments.

The first parameter involved in determining the strategic function of each maneuver concerns the results of each maneuver. The assumption underlying this parameter is that each maneuver is aiming to achieve one specific result. In this stage of the analysis, the analyst is to make use of the overview provided by van Eemeren demonstrating the various options available to the arguer in each discussion stage. From here, the analyst is able to see from a theoretical perspective the various ways in which a specific aspect of strategic maneuvering can impact reasonableness and effectiveness in the different discussion stages. When considering the first parameter, the analyst can consult this theoretical tool in order to determine the result the protagonist is striving to achieve. For instance, a confrontational maneuver may shape the difference of opinion to best favour the protagonist. The analyst will need to further analyse the exact ways in which this maneuver has been carried out by determining which aspects of strategic maneuvering (topical potential, audience demand, presentational choice), were used in order to achieve the specific result. The next step in this process of analysing strategic maneuvers for their strategic function is to reconstruct the argumentation in a way that demonstrates the strategic maneuvers at play (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 170).

The second parameter, the dialectical route available to the arguer, must next be considered by the analyst. The question that must be asked in this instance is, what dialectical route was taken in this instance in order to carry out the maneuver? As defined by van Eemeren,

“dialectical profiles represent the concurrent sequential patterns of the analytically relevant moves that the participants make in … a critical discussion to achieve an outcome of a particular stage of the discussion (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 172).

The third parameter that is considered when determining the strategic function of a maneuver involves the institutional constraints. These institutional constrains correspond to an important component in the pragma-dialectical theory that is the macro-context of the communicative activity type. From general to specific, context in argumentative discourse is illustrated in the following way: domains, genres, activity types, and speech events. It is useful to consider the various contexts when analysing an argumentative discussion because each context has specific institutionalised conventions that can affect the protagonist’s moves. The analyst must therefore begin by identifying the communicative activity type of the discussion.

From here, it is possible to identify the institutional conventions that are imposed upon the discussion. Finally, the analyst is able to judge how these conventions have developed into institutional preconditions that either constrain or enable the strategic maneuvering. These preconditions correspond to the meso-context whereby the context of the argumentative discourse effects specific argumentative moves. Such preconditions are entirely dependent on the particular case in point and must therefore be evaluated individually (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 174).

The fourth parameter that must be considered before determining the strategic function of a maneuver are the commitments that are made by the protagonist and antagonist in the particular point in the discussion that is being analysed. In other words, “the sets of commitments they have contracted in the argumentative discourse up until that point constitute an analytic instrument for substantiating this fourth parameter” (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 178).

The various speech acts performed by the speakers will form a set of commitments that each speaker must comply with in order to meet the rules of the critical discussion. Such commitments also create opportunities for the speaker to exploit their commitments or the commitments of the other party in their strategic maneuvering.

Having taken into consideration all four parameters, the analyst is able to best determine the strategic function of each strategic maneuver. At this point in the analysis, it can be determined whether the protagonist has achieved a coordination of the strategic maneuvers.

As has been noted above, van Eemeren claims that a set of coordinated strategic maneuvers results in the employment of a discussion strategy. In other words:

“If (and only if) the strategic maneuvers made in a particular discussion stage hang together in such a way that they can be regarded as being systematically coordinated, I say that a specific discussion strategy has been employed” (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 46).

There are various discussion strategies that have been identified by pragma-dialectical scholars. Many scholars use the term ‘discussion strategies’ or ‘argumentative strategies’ in various ways. Consider for example the following definition:

in an argumentative strategy the argumentative moves that are made constitute together a concerted succession of strategic maneuvers furthering one and the same outcome and that in all argumentative moves that are part of the strategy the topical, audience-oriented, and stylistic choices cohere (van Eemeren and Garssen, 2014, p. 556)

According to pragma-dialectical scholars, a coordination of the strategic maneuvers must involve a convergence at both the vertical level and the horizontal level (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 47). A vertical level convergence is realized when all aspects of strategic maneuvering are coordinated, i.g the topical potential, the adaptation to audience demand, and the presentational choices (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 47). Complimentary to this vertical level, a horizontal level of convergence is realized when each argumentative move is coordinated and successive to the next (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 47). At this point, the coordination requirement has been fulfilled, and a discussion strategy has been deployed (van Eeemeren, 2010, p. 46).

As an example of the various discussion strategies that can develop, van Eemeren specifies there can be general discussion strategies that apply to the discussion as a whole, and there can be specific strategies that pertain to specific discussion stages, i.e confrontation strategies, opening strategies, argumentation strategies, and concluding strategies (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 46).

When it is evident that a discussion strategy is employed, I propose this discussion strategy is correlates to the frame that is used. I demonstrate this theoretical and analytical hypothesis in chapter 3.4 by systematically looking at each stage in a critical discussion and evaluating the strategic maneuvers that take place in each stage. Following this, I will demonstrate with a selection of small case studies, how a frame is developed by a set of coordinated strategic maneuvers and the employment of a discussion strategy.