APPLYING THE PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL THEORY TO FRAMING ANALYSIS: A NEW APPROACH AND METHOD
Auste Valinciute Student number 10231188
E.: auausteja@gmail.com
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MA Discourse and argumentation studies
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Humanities
June 14, 2013
Dissertation supervisor: Dr. J. H. Plug Second reader: Dr. A.F. Snoeck Henkemans
ABSTRACT
In this thesis the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, its concepts and analytical methods are utilized for analyzing the concept of framing. In its most basic sense, framing can be understood as a process through which speakers define issues, creating interpretation cues for their audiences regarding those issues. The importance of analyzing framing stems from its ability to shape opinions. However, the concept of framing stills lack a compelling method of analysis. In the course of the thesis a new method is generated for extracting discourse frames and identifying techniques used to construct them. This method is based on the pragma-dialectical theory. Through its application in a case study, the method proves to be viable, not only systemizing framing analysis, but, also, making its procedures transparent and justifiable.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1Thesis objectives 2
1.2 Structural organization of the thesis 4
CHAPTER 2: BUILDING A GENERAL NOTION ABOUT FRAMES AND FRAMING 6
2.1 Framing as a natural cognitive process 6
2.2 Framing as a strategic process 8
2.2.1 Framing techniques 11
2.2.2 Framing effects 13
2.2.3 Summary of the essential points on strategic framing 15
2.3 Analyzing strategic framing 16
CHAPTER 3: BUILDING A GENERAL NOTION ABOUT THE PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION
19
3.1 Theoretical framework of pragma-dialectics 19
3.2 Analyzing argumentative discourse through the pragma-dialectical theory 23
3.3 Strategic maneuvering 26
CHAPTER 4: APPLYING THE PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL THEORY OF
ARGUMENTATION FOR ANALYZING FRAMES AND FRAMING TECHNIQUES
30
4.1 The importance of argumentation in framing analysis 30
4.2 The method 32
4.2.1 Step zero: recognizing the argumentative dimension of the text 32 4.2.2 Step one: identifying the context and audience of the discourse 33 4.2.3 Step two: reconstructing the text in terms of a critical discussion 34
4.2.4 Step three: building an analytical overview of the text 35
4.2.5 Step four: extracting a frame from the text 37
4.2.6 Step five: applying the strategic maneuvering concept to identify the framing techniques used in frame construction
39
CHAPTER 5: APPLYING THE METHOD IN A CASE STUDY FOR FRAME EXTRACTION AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF FRAMING TECHNIQUES
43
5.1 Case study background 43
5.2 The analysis 44
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY 61
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Frame elements 10
Table 2. Frame alignment sub-processes 12
Table 3. Equivalency framing effects-The Asian disease dilemma experiment results 14
Table 4. Strategic and cognitive framing definitions 15
Table 5. Not mutually exclusive methodological approaches used in media framing research 17
Table 6. Ideal model of a critical discussion in the form of a dialogue 21
Table 7. Ideal model of a critical discussion in the form of a monologue 21
Table 8. Components of analytical overview 24
Table 9. Frame extraction table 38
Table 10. Strategic maneuvering analytical questions for identifying framing techniques 40
Table 11. Case study frame extraction results 52
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Language is a critical social influence tool. Consequently, information that it produces is not just an artifact, but also a major agent in the influence on our opinions. Conversely, when information is desired to have an effect, when it holds an essential purpose besides the act of communication itself, language and its use become fundamental for achieving it. We know this when we attempt to convince others. Others know this when they attempt to convince us. Therefore, when information becomes strategic, the language used to convey it is hardly ever neutral, but rather designed according to its goals, if not specifically calculated.
One theory that deals with such treatment of language for strategic purposes in communication is called framing. The basic premise of the theory is that the way in which issues are represented through language can form their meaning for audiences and work towards increasing the persuasive potential of information that is produced - a quality that is intrinsic when an opinion is at stake. When this opinion pertains to public matters, framing becomes what Hallahan (1999, p.207) calls a crucial ‘activity in the construction of social reality’, because it helps and systematically works towards shaping ‘the perspectives through which people see the world.’ Such role of framing as an agent in reality construction and, hence, possible variable in opinion formation is both defeating and empowering. On one hand, it prompts you to question how independent our individuality in terms of opinions really is. On the other hand, the realization that framing exists and how it functions prompts critical thinking, more importantly, an analytical quest to explore the wider context of possibilities for encountered realities. In either case, framing is an important concept, marked by an overwhelming array of research, attempting to deconstruct its workings in diverse spheres and simultaneously build its theoretical foundation. What is more, it is a highly multidisciplinary concept with attempts for its exploration present in various research contexts. Introduced by Gregory Bateson in 1954, the concept of framing has been applied and examined in areas such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, linguistics and the media studies (Tannen, 1993).
Yet, it is this interest and proliferation of the concept that has perhaps resulted in framing being what Entman (1993, p.51) refers to as a fractured paradigm, claiming that ‘despite its omnipresence across the social sciences and humanities, nowhere is there a general statement of
2 framing theory that shows exactly how frames become embedded within and make themselves manifest in a text, or how framing influences thinking.’ Brosius and Eps (1995 in Scheufele, 1999, p.103) take the matter even further, giving the concept a relatively pessimistic diagnosis, by claiming that the core theoretical problems result in framing being ‘not a generally applicable concept, but a metaphor that cannot be directly translated into research questions.’ Scheufele (1999, p.103) confirms this problem alternatively, stating that ‘research in framing is characterized by theoretical and empirical vagueness.’ According to the author, lack of concrete conceptualization, allowing to explain the underlying workings of the concept ‘translates into operational problems’, which in turn limit the ‘comparability’ of instruments and, consequently, results. In 2007, Chong and Druckman (p.106) compare the operational use of framing in research to a cottage industry. Despite its critiques, framing research is flourishing, yet the application and the methods for the analysis of the concept are still a do it yourself enterprise, dependent on the purpose of research and the ultimate goals of the investigator.
On the one hand, the critiques are not without merit. Indeed, there is no single and, most importantly, appraised theoretical treatment of framing. As a matter of fact, even the definition of framing is frequently inconsistent, whilst validated and unanimously approved analysis methods have not yet emerged (Hertog & Mcleod, 2001 p. 139). On the other hand, the scope of the framing concept is so rich and so widely-applicable, that it is almost natural that every investigator is molding the concept according to his or her theoretical paradigms and analysis goals. After all, the concept deals with communication, its processes, products, tools and effects – phenomena that not only lack boundaries in applicability, but are also in themselves subject to various perceptive angles and interests.
1.1 Thesis objectives
This thesis will attempt to approach the concept of framing from the perspective of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Pragma-dialectics (Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984) is a theory developed to analyze argumentation, treating it as a communicative and interactive discourse activity, taking place in real-life and used to convince audiences (implicit, single or multiple) in the acceptability of a standpoint, adopted in regard to some proposition.
The rationale for this approach and this thesis is two-fold. First, it provides a new outlook on frame analysis, simultaneously presenting a new methodology and analytical processes to
3 examine discourse for frames and framing techniques. The assumption for adopting the pragma-dialectical theory for framing analysis is that it can systemize, enrich and make analyzing frames and framing more justifiable than currently present methods allow. At the same time, the combination of these two theoretical entities brings in a new aspect of investigation in framing analysis, namely – argumentation. The second rationale for the pragma-dialectical approach to framing is set for addressing the contextual disbalance in current research. A major portion of framing research is concerned with mass-media communication, mainly news reporting and journalism in general. In turn, framing research lacks compelling methods for the analysis of argumentative discourse on public issues by other influential society elites. Whilst the interest in mass-media framing is certainly understandable due to its role and magnitude in some societies and the effects of the framing process itself, it overlooks the significance of framing in the direct argumentative discourse of top officials and other influential society elites. Even though media has the advantage of scale, journalistic frames on public issues may, first of all, be susceptible to indirect contestation by fellow journalistic frames and second, the public trust in journalists and media itself is open to debate, hence it can be questioned how significant framing effects of these spheres are. What is more, whereas some countries constitute heavily mediated societies, the presumptions of media framing effects may not be as significant where media power is of less strength, scope or freedom. Alternatively, media framing raises the question as to what extent journalists, for example, are engaged in autonomic issue framing, as opposed to the reiteration of elite frames. In the cascading activation model of framing, which illustrates how frames spread through the society, Entman (2003, p.420) places governmental administration and other elites at the top point in the flow, as ‘ideas that start at the top level, the administration, possess the greatest strength.’
In light of these reflections, the aim of this thesis will be to apply the pragma-dialectical theory, its concepts and methods of analysis to investigate its potential in framing research and consequently develop a new method for framing analysis. Specifically, the method for framing analysis will focus on discourse frame extraction and the identification of techniques used to construct the frame. The method will be generated to analyze direct argumentative discourse on a public issue by a government official. To fulfill this aim, the thesis is marked by a central research question:
4 1.How can the pragma-dialectical theory be used in framing analysis?
To answer the latter question, however, we will first need to explore further aspects of these two theoretical entities by asking the following leading questions:
2. What is the theoretical conceptualization of framing?
3. What is the theoretical conceptualization of the pragma-dialectical theory? 3.1 What analysis methods does the pragma-dialectical theory provide?
Last but not least, with having answered research question number one, we will attempt to illustrate the use of the pragma-dialectical theory in framing analysis, by applying the generated method to a case study. It is hoped that the case study will directly portray, clarify and promote the use of pragma-dialectics by showing its potential, usefulness and benefit in frame extraction and the identification of techniques for that frame’s construction.
1.2 Structural organization of the thesis
Chapter 2 of this thesis will be used to explore the framing theory in order to build a comprehensive overview of the concept. This chapter will make a crucial distinction on the conceptual use of framing in research, not only to clarify the concept itself, but also to clarify the angle from which framing is approached in this thesis. Furthermore, the chapter will introduce the reader to the general outline of the function and implications of framing along with the inclusion and clarification of the key terms and processes associated with the concept. Last, this chapter will present a brief overview of the currently used approaches in framing research. Chapter 3 will be used to introduce the reader to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. First, it will provide a synopsis of the theoretical grounds of pragma-dialectics and, then, it will focus on the explication of the relevant analytical concepts and methods that will be bridged with the aim of this thesis in Chapter 4 to answer the question - how can the pragma-dialectical theory be used in framing analysis? Chapter 4 will result in a method, generated from the synthesis of these two theoretical entities, to be used in extracting discourse frames and identifying techniques used to construct them. Chapter 5 of this thesis will illustrate the application and potential of the method generated in the previous chapter. This method will be
5 applied to an analysis of a speech given in the Lithuanian Parliament on a high profile public issue regarding a corruption scandal with the purpose of extracting a frame projected in the discourse and identifying framing techniques used to construct it. The last chapter of this thesis, Chapter 6, will be dedicated to a concluding discussion on the synthesis of pragma-dialectics and framing, along with benefits and potential shortcomings, moreover the advantages and disadvantages of using the newly generated method of analysis for framing research.
6
Chapter 2: Building a general notion about frames and framing
This chapter will make an effort to introduce readers to the concept of framing. By presenting relevant insights conceived for its theoretical illumination it will hopefully build a general notion of what it is that the concept attempts to address and analyze. Taking note of critiques on the vagueness and ambiguity of utilizing the framing concept in research, a useful point of departure for this chapter would be to make a distinction that framing can be approached from two points of interest. To be precise, framing can be conceived of and analyzed both as a strategic process and as a natural cognitive process. Thus, the first section of this chapter will introduce the natural cognitive conceptualization of framing, whereas the further sections will address framing as a strategic process – the conceptualization at the base of interest in this thesis. Within the explication of strategic framing, the text will concurrently focus on the function of framing in communication, definition of key terms and processes associated with the concept, and framing effects – information pertinent for understanding the rationale and aims of framing analysis. Furthermore, the last section of the chapter will present an overview of the currently used methodological approaches in framing research, along with information on their procedures and shortcomings. This last section will transition readers to the next chapter of the thesis, where the theoretical basis of our subsequently proposed method will be presented and explained.
2.1 Framing as a natural cognitive process
Understanding framing as a natural cognitive process implies, amongst other things, that a) framing is something that is done intuitively and b) framing is a process undertaken by all individuals1. Erving Goffman’s Frame Analysis (1974) is considered to be a major theoretical contribution in the development of such conceptualization of framing. In his research, Goffman was bemused by a question - how is it that individuals make sense of reality? Or in other words,
how do they understand what is going on? This question became the precedent to a thorough
explanation. According to the author, the processing of reality can be conceptualized in the following way:
1 Bateson’s (1954) observation of monkey play implies that these primates too use framing to interpret their
realities. According to Bateson a monkey understands a hostile move by another monkey not as aggression but as play, by referencing to a metamessage “This is play” in the interpretation of the move (in Tannen, 1993, p.3).
7
When the individual in our Western society recognizes a particular event, he tends, whatever else he does, to imply in this response (and in effect employ) one or more frameworks or schemata of interpretation of a kind that can be called primary. (…) primary framework is one that is seen as rendering what would otherwise be a meaningless aspect of the scene into something that is meaningful. (…) each primary framework allows its user to locate, perceive, identify and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences defined in its terms (1974, p. 21).
In other words, individuals interpret and understand a strip of encountered reality through a cognitive reference to the pre-existing structures of knowledge that they possess2. The process of this cognitive referencing is framing and the pre-existing structures of knowledge are frames. Whilst searching for the correct interpretation the possibilities are vast. Yet we comparatively frequently choose the one that seems the most relevant, excluding others that at the particular place and time appear counter intuitive (Kaufman et al, 2003). Seeing a friend walking toward us and waving a hand, we interpret or label this movement of the limb as a greeting. Rarely in such situations do we think that our friend is performing a dance or participating in some other activity that would be irrelevant at that exact moment. The intuitive nature of framing in the interpretation of reality stems from the fact that, as according to Goffman (1974, p.21), the individual is likely unaware that such structures of knowledge, i.e. frames, even exist or, if asked, would likely be ‘incapable to describe them.’
A similar explanation of the natural cognitive framing process comes from the artificial intelligence scholar Marvin Minksy (1974). However, Minsky claims that frames not only help interpreting realities, but also provide instructions to the decisions on further behavior:
When one encounters a new situation one selects from memory a substantial structure called a frame. This is a remembered framework to be adapted to fit reality by changing details as necessary. A frame is a data-structure for representing a stereotyped situation (...). Attached to each frame are several kinds of information. Some of this information is about how to use the frame. Some is about what one can expect to happen next. Some is about what to do if these expectations are not confirmed. We can think of a frame as a network of nodes and relations (…) Collections of related frames are linked together in frame systems (1974).
2 It is important to note, however, that for decades there has been no consensus on the explanation of Goffman’s
account on framing in the academic community. Where attempts have been made, they often tend to be criticized as either misunderstanding the concept or even worse, not understanding it at all (Scheff, 2005). Yet the erroneous comprehension of the concept may not necessarily be due to some shortcomings of the research process or even the researcher himself. In a review of the 1974 “Frame Analysis” Gamson (1975, p.605) states that Goffman’s take on frame analysis is a “sociological art form”, which will result in only “the talented” grasping and performing it. Thomas Scheff (2005) sees a similar problem in Goffman’s style of theoretical explanations, resulting in his ideas being greatly enigmatic. Thus, it is crucial to acknowledge self-awareness in the fact that this particular explanation of Goffman’s conceptualization of framing may be only tentative.
8
2.2 Framing as a strategic process
The notion of framing as a strategic process forms a significant basis of research that followed Goffman’s 1974 writing (Hallahan, 2008) and is frequently relatively loosely based on his initial conceptualization (König, 2007). The main difference between these two notions, i.e. natural cognitive and strategic, is the shift in the use of framing and the function of frames from the mind of a sole individual as an aid in making sense of reality to the active use by others for guiding how individuals should interpret it (Druckman, 2001). Therefore, the notion of framing as a strategic process essentially implies its purposefully based use that is usually associated with the aim of achieving some desired result like ‘convincing a broader audience, building coalitions, or lending preferentiality to specific outcomes’ (Kaufman et al., 2003).
It is this particular notion of framing that constitutes the primary object of interest in this thesis and the following sections are devoted to a review of the relevant theoretical developments conceived for its illumination and, most importantly, explanation of the key terms concerned with its use. The brief summary part of this section (2.2.3) however, will attempt to portray that the natural vs. strategic dichotomization of framing can and must be unified for a comprehensive understanding of how it is that strategic framing functions.
In its most basic sense, strategic framing can be understood as issue definition, a process of giving a statement or description of an important topic or problem of debate and discussion (Kosicki in Lavrakas, 2007). This definition, in turn, creates a certain perspective that can guide the further treatment that the issue receives. The underlying rationale of the framing concept is that issues can be viewed from a variety of perspectives; however, the selection of particular definitions aims to guide their interpretation among the audiences that are subjected to it or targeted by it. What is important, however, is that the selection of a definition usually resonates with some goals of the communicator, who uptakes this process. These goals are ultimately associated with the attraction of audience support for the definition, i.e. the frame. Framing is undertaken on a twofold assumption - that the way in which issues are presented affects whether they are met with support and that some definitions are more powerful than others in cultivating that support. Moreover, it is undertaken on the assumption that opinions in general, are susceptible to influences. As Sniderman & Theriault (2004) argue:
9
[I]t now is widely agreed that citizens in large number can be readily blown from one side of an issue to the very opposite depending on how the issue is specifically framed. In turn, the ease with which they can be blown from one side of an issue to the other suggests that the positions they take are far from securely anchored in underlying, enduring principles (p.6).
Therefore, it can be said that strategic framing serves a three-fold purpose. First, it is used to select a definition of an issue. Second, through the selection of this definition, framing is used to guide the addressee’s interpretation of the issue along a specific direction. Third by guiding the addressee’s interpretation along a specific direction, framing is used to gain support or reach some other ultimate objective concerning the issue (Heath, 2005; Hallahan, 2008).
Significant amount of research is carried out to determine how journalists engage in the process of strategic framing, hence, there is relatively little research concerning how strategic framing unfolds in the top levels, more precisely, in the discourse of the ruling powers of the society. According to Jacoby (2000, p. 751) strategic framing is ‘an explicitly political phenomenon’ not only unequivocally used by politicians but, also crucial for their ‘ultimate political objectives.’ Entman (1993, p.55) also recognizes framing as an intrinsic component of communication in the political domain, where the actors, driven by a continuous quest for support, are ‘compelled to compete over how their audiences perceive realities’. Moreover, whilst it is not to say that journalist do not have an influence in framing issues, political actors have the upmost control in this process. ‘Framing in this light’, - as Entman argues - “plays a major role in the exertion of political power’3 (2003, p.417).
Strategic framing is fundamentally a communicative process, which entails a tailored handling of discourse on an issue that is marked by the selection and promotion of certain elements concerning its nature and ultimately the exclusion or downplaying of the others that are counterproductive in order to give the issue a preferred meaning and evoke its preferred interpretation for generating support (Hallahan 1999; 2008). Within Entman’s theoretical treatment of framing, two comparable accounts can be found. In 1993 and 2003 the process of framing is given the following characterizations in their respectable order:
3 To Entman, the registration of a set frame by political elites within news discourse portrays that political power has
indeed been exerted.
10
To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicative text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (1993, p.52).
Framing entails selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution (2003, p. 417).
Consequently, this process produces information that is composed of cues, which guide its interpretation and how it should be understood or even talked about. Taken as a whole, these cues build a frame, a ‘central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events’ (Gamson and Modigliani, 1987, p.143). Following Entman’s (1993; 2003) conceptualizations of the framing process, a frame includes one or all four of the following elements presented in table 1 below:
Table 1
Frame elements
Frame element Problem definition
Diagnosis of the problem cause Moral judgment
Remedy suggestion
The problem, its nature and scope. The force creating the problem.
The evaluation of the problem and its causal agent. Something that could be done to alleviate the problem.
According to Entman, the basic interest in the concept of framing is that it allows understanding ‘the power of a communicating text’ (1993, p.52), that is, how information can ultimately influence human consciousness and, potentially, further action. Therefore, the importance of analyzing framing stems from its ability to essentially shape or shift opinions and, possibly, induce further behavioral actions of those subjected or targeted by the propounded frame. Of course, this quality must not be regarded as inherently malicious. On one hand, framing can help gathering individuals that share similar predicaments and by doing so work toward overcoming their problems or reaching their goals, as is done in social movements (Chong and Druckman, 2007, p.120). In other words, framing can be crucial in the activism for the public or individual good, as the promotion of road safety or drug, alcohol, disease and abuse
11 prevention - the causes are vast. Nonetheless, frames can turn what would be a chaotic flow of diverse information into coherent systems in this way simplifying complex issues for individuals and working as heuristic devices to reduce information processing time (Callaghan, 2005; Kinder & Nelson 2005).
At the same time, however, framing has an inbuilt capacity for becoming a manipulative agent in communication (Chong and Druckman, 2007), since it essentially attempts to bias the audience’s cognitive processing of available information (Heath, 2005, p.340; Hallahan, 2008). Moreover, whilst frames simplify complex issues, they also oversimplify reality, portraying it in a way that serves the interest of the framer and not necessarily the interest of the audience (Callaghan, 2005; Kinder & Nelson 2005). The dangers of framing become even more profound when there is a lack of competing interpretive frames on an issue, not only in matter but in their scale. This, in turn, may result in issues that thrive on imposed definitional monopolies, in this way hindering their alternative readings and possibly diminishing other factors that could modify their meaning and, consequently acceptance, support or rejection in the public (Entman, 1993). According to Entman (2003, p.418) such situations become complex even within the political domain: ‘in these cases, the dominant frame produces extraordinarily one-sided survey results, and these in turn discourage dissenting politicians from speaking out, thus cementing the hold of the one frame.’
2.2.1 Framing techniques
Entman claims that the process of making some aspects of a perceived reality more salient than others, as in the 1993 definition, and presumably the process of highlighting some facets of events or issues, as in the 2003 definition, is how framing works or is used towards reaching its objectives. As the author states (1993, p.53) ‘an increase in salience can enhances the probability that receivers will perceive the information, discern meaning, and thus process it and store it in memory.’
Salience, according to Entman (1993, p.53; 2003), is achieved through placement, repetition, or the association of texts with culturally resonant symbols and terms. These culturally resonant symbols and terms include culturally significant words and images, having the features of being ‘noticeable, understandable, memorable, and emotionally charged’ (2003; p. 417). Yet, as Entman claims (2003; 417), the ‘greatest potential for influence’ comes when the
12 use of culturally resonant terms is powered by the magnitude of a set frame, i.e., its repetition. In framing, the resonance of terms within the culture combined with their amplified repetition is ‘likely to evoke similar thoughts and feelings in large portions of the audience.’
Snow et al (1986), however, state that frame alignment is the crucial component and technique for framing success. Through an empirical analysis of communication from flourishing social movements the authors claim that the greatest mobilization of support towards an issue is achieved when the ‘individual and social movement organization (SMO) interpretative orientations are linked, such that some set of individual interests, values and beliefs and SMO activities, goals and ideology are congruent and complementary’ (1986, p.464). Consequently, the preferences of audience become a critical consideration in frame production (see also Entman, 2003). Chong and Druckman (2007, p.116) claim that such tactics are also typical in politics, where frames on proposals, for example ‘attempt to link them with positive ideas, values, or universally supported goals prevalent within the population of addressees, suggesting that the advanced proposal will improve or preserve it.’ Frame alignment, as identified by Snow et al (1986) within social movement communication, is achieved through the following four sub-processes – frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation. A more thorough explanation of these sub-processes is presented in table 2 below.
Table 2
Frame alignment sub processes (Snow et al, 1986)
Frame bridging: the linkage of SMO's with individuals who share common grievances and attributional orientations, but who lack the organizational base for expressing their discontents and for acting in pursuit of their interests. Frame amplification: clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem or set of events by value amplification and belief amplification
Frame extension: extending the boundaries of an SMO's primary framework so as to encompass interests or points of view that are incidental to its primary objectives but of considerable salience to potential adherents
Frame transformation: the programs, causes, and values that some SMOs promote, however, may not resonate with, and on occasion may even appear antithetical to, conventional lifestyles or rituals and extant interpretive frames. When such is the case, new values may have to be planted and nurtured, old meanings or understandings jettisoned, and erroneous beliefs or "misframings" reframed.
13
2.2.2 Framing effects
When a projected frame on an issue positively resonates in the follow-up behavior of an addressed individual regarding that issue, it is considered that a framing effect has taken place. The occurrences of framing effects have been notably analyzed in psychological research experiments. Yet Kahneman and Tversky (2000, p. xv) claim that ‘framing effects are less significant for their contribution to psychology than for their importance in the real world and for the challenge they raise to the foundations of a rational model of decision making.’
Throughout various studies (1981, 1984, 1986) Kahneman and Tversky have shown how logically equal, yet linguistically different phrasings of issues can evoke relatively divergent results in the options that respondents choose when asked to do so. In other words, different framings of the same issue produce a discrepancy in the respondent choices regarding that issue, more precisely their support and rejection. Table 3 (p.14) presents one of Kahneman and Tversky’s experiments that portrays an instance of such an experiment and its results. In the ‘Asian disease dilemma’ (1981) experiment , Kahneman and Tversky asked their respondents to make a choice regarding a disease prevention program they would favor in case of its major breakout. The utterly equal programs were framed in terms of the consequences they will produce, constituting either a ‘gain’ or a ‘loss’ perspective. The findings portrayed that respondents would perpetually choose the program that was famed in a ‘gain’ perspective. According to the authors, such findings run contrary to the presupposition that decision-making is a predominantly rational activity:
Explanations and predictions of people's choices, in everyday life as well as in the social sciences, are often founded on the assumption of human rationality. The definition of rationality has been much debated, but there is general agreement that rational choices should satisfy some elementary requirements of consistency and coherence. In this article rational choice requires that the preference between options should not reverse with changes of frame. Because of imperfections of human perception and decision, however, changes of perspective often reverse the relative apparent size of objects and the relative desirability of options (1981, p.453).
14
Table 3
Equivalency framing effects -The Asian disease dilemma experiment results (Kahneman & Tversky, 1981) Question: Which of the two programs would you favor?
Problem 1 [N = 152]: Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. [72 percent]
If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. [28 percent]
Problem2 [N= 155]: Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows:
If Program C is adopted 400 people will die. [22 percent]
If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. [78 percent]
Similarly, Sniderman and Theriault (2004) conducted an experiment to assess how the emphasis on different values regarding an issue would affect survey participants when confronted with a choice. Two questions about the level of support individuals would give to a group rally holding very extreme political views were put forward following two different value considerations for each choice – a) given the importance of free speech and b) given the threat of violence. The results showed that framing the issue in terms of the free speech perspective generates an overwhelming increase of support.
Outside of isolated environment experiments, Lakoff (2004) claims that the effects of framing are evident when considering such events as the invasion of Iraq by the Bush administration in 2003 and the magnitude, amongst other factors, of the propounded ‘weapons of mass destruction’ frame. Despite the lack of evidence that Saddam Hussein had any weapons of mass destruction; that there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda; and that President Bush has been exposed as a liar - 70% of Americans still think that the United States invasion of Iraq was to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction and to break off the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.4
15
2.2.3 Summary of the essential points on strategic framing
Framing pervades all stages of communication. Creators and receivers of information are equally engaged in this process. The main difference between the uses of framing by creators and receivers lies in the purposes of its use. Creators of information use framing (strategic framing) to define reality and by doing so to construct its frames composed of cues that guide how this reality should be perceived by their audiences. Receivers of information use framing (cognitive framing) to interpret it by referring to a pre-existing base of frames that are stored in one’s memory (see table 4 below for definitions). Lakoff claims (2004) that people will simply be less inclined to accept ‘truths’ produced in discourse if they don’t resonate with frames they already know and understand or can relate to. Therefore, the art of strategic framing lies in the ability to construct information on a given issue in a way that will evoke the desired interpretative structures of its receivers, which ultimately involves a meticulous selection and manufacturing of language along with a diligent understanding of one’s audiences.
Table 4
Strategic and cognitive framing definitions
Pre-existing frames - collection of already acquired interpretive structures (through social interaction, knowledge, experiences) that individuals store in their memory.
Cognitive framing - process through which individuals apply pre-existing frames to understand realities they encounter.
Strategic framing - process through which individuals construct discourse on realities in attempt to shift the interpretation of their meaning by audiences along a desired direction.
Strategic frames - definitions of reality through words or visuals that act as cues for how realities should be interpreted.
16
2.3 Analyzing strategic framing
Framing is a rich concept and according to Maher (2001, p.84) it ‘has proven [to be] elusive to measure.’ There are a few problems one faces when attempting to undertake framing research. First, one finds that there is no pre-determined method for framing analysis. Also, there is no consensus on the appropriateness of the variety of methods currently employed in framing research, including methods for frame extraction and framing technique identification (König, 2007). For this reason, framing research results frequently pose a question of validity. Second, one finds that most research, from which the currently used methods could be borrowed and applied, is mainly focused on analyses of mass media material. Matthes & Kohring (2008) identify five not mutually exclusive methodological approaches used in media framing research – the hermeneutic approach, the linguistic approach, the manual holistic approach, a computer-assisted approach and the deductive approach. Table 5 presents a detailed description of the procedures of these methods, along with their shortcomings, as identified by Matthes & Kohring (2008). The stated shortcomings illuminate the problems associated with the usefulness and appropriateness of the methods and, hence, framing analysis result validity.
17 Table 5
Not mutually exclusive methodological approaches used in media framing research (Matthes & Kohring, 2008, pp.259- 263) Approach Method Shortcomings
The hermeneutic approach
Interpretation of small samples that mirror the discourse of an issue or event; in depth description of frames; linkage of frames to broader cultural elements.
Difficulties to tell how frames are identified and extracted; subjective; no certainty about the robustness of frames.
The linguistic approach
Search and analysis of specific linguistic elements in short samples, such as paragraphs, that signify a frame – syntax, script, theme, rhetoric - and how they are selected, placed and structured within the text.
Complex, fit for small samples; difficult to tell how all the features are finally woven together to signify a frame.
The manual holistic approach
Frames are first generated by a qualitative analysis of some news texts and then coded as holistic variables in a manual content analysis.
The reliability and validity of this approach strongly depend upon the transparency in extracting the frames. However, in some studies, it remains unclear how researchers determine their frames. Without naming the criteria for the identification of frames, their assessment falls into a methodological black box. One runs the risk of extracting researcher frames, not media frames.
The computer-assisted approach
Dictionary based approach: frame mapping:
Authors seek to identify frames by examining specific vocabularies in texts. Frame mapping is described as a method of finding particular words that occur together in some texts and do not tend to occur together in other texts.
Syntactical based approach using Infotrend computer program.
Analysis consists of three steps: 1) entering idea categories into the program; 2) specifying words that reveal those categories; 3) programming rules that combine the idea categories in order to give a more complex meaning. These three steps ‘‘are created and refined by human coders through a series of iterations testing their performance’
Dictionary based approach: frame mapping
Reduces frames to clusters of words; the lack of validity.
Syntactical approach:
All computer-assisted methods premise that a word and a phrase always have exactly one meaning in every context;; limited to electronic text only; studies using this method have not always made entirely clear how the frames were found in the first place.
The deductive approach
Frames are postulated and stories are analyzed through a series of questions to which the researchers answer “yes” or “no”, e.g. “is there the mention of X in Y”?
Limited to already established frames; inflexible when it comes to the identification of newly emerging frames.
18 The lack of a single method in framing analysis is somewhat understandable and may not inherently imply a deficiency in the concept. Since framing research can be applied within a variety of contexts and to a variety of sources, a unified method may not be applicable across the totality of this spectrum. However, the lack of approved methods and, most importantly, the lack of a method for analyzing non media related discourse becomes problematic. This problematic lies in the fact that a researcher, not wishing to analyze a ‘media text’5 , simply runs short of an instrument for framing analysis.
The purpose of this thesis is to suggest a new possible method for the analysis of frames and framing techniques, which could be applied to the examination of non - reproduced discourse. The term non – reproduced pertains to the original discourse that has not been reformulated, restructured or retold by a secondary agent. The rationale for the need to examine non-reproduced discourse stems from the belief that communicators, especially politicians, are consistently engaged in framing and the deconstruction of this process must not be reduced solely to the analysis of their discourse represented in the media6. For one, media often provides only fragments or sound bites of what politicians say, which may not necessarily reflect the full, coherent view of their issue treatment. Consequently, this selection of fragments or sound bites may relate more to the framing uptaken by journalists, rather than politicians themselves. What is more, if it would be argued that the currently available methods of framing analysis could be appropriated for analyzing non - reproduced discourse, none of them actually pertain to observing one of the essential analyzable aspects of such texts, i.e. the argumentative dimension, which could provide invaluable insights for frame extraction on public issues and the identification of framing techniques used to construct them.
The following chapter is dedicated to the explication of the theoretical, conceptual and analytical elements of an argumentation theory, namely pragma-dialectics. This theory will be used as a base for the development of our soon to be proposed method (see Chapter 4) for frame extraction and framing technique analysis.
5 Note that this does not neccesarily mean that the text is not mediated.
6 Here we could non-exhaustively note public statements or parliamentary debates. For example, in the Republic of
19
Chapter 3: Building a general notion about the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation
The primary object of interest in the pragma-dialectical theory is argumentative discourse; however, this should not be immediately seen as an imposed restriction on the scope of applicability of the theory. Argumentative discourse is not anything unusual, special or rare. As a matter of fact, it is an ordinary occurrence. Its main distinctive feature is set in the way that talking or writing is done. In an abstract sense argumentative discourse can be seen as a special manner of communication that is characterized by the use of reasons - arguments - in defense or in opposition to claims, which are made in regard to a specific topic (Crable, 1976, p.9). Since this topic can pertain to a universe of possibilities, it is easy to see that argumentative discourse, whether in speech or in writing, is something that we all engage in or are presented with relatively frequently. So has the pragma-dialectical theory been applied to the analysis of argumentative discourse within a multitude of contexts, ranging from court room procedures to doctor – patient consultations, from political debates in the parliament to interviews on TV. The possibility of this wide applicability of the theory stems from the fact that argumentative discourse is a constant component of our social realities and interactions, whatever its context might be.
The pragma-dialectical theory, originates with van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984), who have developed an insightful theoretical treatment of argumentative discourse along with methods of its analysis and evaluation. Pragma-dialecticians view argumentation on a process-product dimension, broadening its conceptualization and allowing to see it not only in terms of a reasoning product but also as an activity that individuals engage in. Therefore, the process – product dimension builds a comprehensive overview of what argumentative discourse is in its essence and, most importantly, reflects its verbal, social and rational nature.
3.1 Theoretical framework of pragma-dialectics
To pragma-dialecticians argumentation is primarily a means to resolve a difference of opinion. A difference of opinion arises when two individuals do not fully agree on some topic. This disagreement may have various forms, shapes and sizes. For example, one person may put forward a standpoint regarding a topic and another person may be simply doubtful of such a position. In other cases, he or she may explicitly counter it, by formulating an own standpoint on
20 the topic. Nevertheless, this disagreement may only be anticipated, powered by a hunch that the standpoint regarding a topic will evoke criticism or different opinions from real or potential audiences, contrary to the one shared by its proponent. Moreover, the disagreement may concern only one topic or, alternatively, a few topics or issues of a topic at once. Albeit the possibilities are numerous, it is important to note that the difference of opinion, whether narrow or broad, anticipated or explicit, is the catalyst for argumentation to unfold and in all these cases argumentation is not only a method but also ‘a reasonable way of trying to put the difference of opinion to an end’ (van Eemeren et al. 2002, p. xi).
After a difference of opinion has been established or predicted in the anticipatory form, a critical discussion proceeds, through which an effort is made to resolve the disagreement brought about by the difference of opinion. Here, arguments are put forward attempting to remove the critic’s doubts or disapproval. The critical discussion notion has a significant importance within the pragma-dialectical theory as it dialectifies the disagreement and the attempt at its elimination. The discussion members become protagonists and antagonists of standpoints, who begin an intellectual communicative exchange to defend or reject each other’s position through the use of arguments and other speech acts pertinent to this process. It must be noted, however, that
discussion should be understood as a symbolic term, without a requirement that a discussion
partner must be physically present. As it often happens and as been noted in the previous paragraph, divergent reactions to an opinion can only be assumed. Nevertheless, when an individual engages in argumentation it can be seen as an attempt to have a discussion with potential critics - antagonists.
The course of a critical discussion in real-life situations is hard to predict, unless it happens in a formalized environment or it is in itself formalized according to certain standards of its context. According to the pragma-dialectical theory, however, a critical discussion should pass through four specific stages (see table 6 and table 7, p.21), the total of which pragma-dialecticians have conceptualized to constitute an ideal attempt at resolving a difference of opinion. It is seen as an ideal attempt, due to the indispensable function of the stages and their components that together work towards resolving the disagreement in a reasonable and productive manner. Therefore, these four distinguished stages form the ideal model of a critical discussion. Tables 6 and 7 present an overview of the ideal model of a critical discussion for
21 dialogue and monologue discussions respectively, along with a detailed description of each stage.
Table 6
Ideal model of a critical discussion in the form of a dialogue (van Eemeren et al, 2002, p. 25)
Confrontation stage It is established that a difference of opinion exists. This may either be done by the
opponent criticizing the standpoint or by the opponent putting forward the opposite standpoint.
Opening stage Parties decide to try to resolve the difference of opinion. They assign the roles of
protagonist (defending a standpoint on a given topic) and antagonist (criticizing or refuting the protagonist’s standpoint by putting forward an opposite standpoint). The parties also agree on the rules for the discussion and on the starting points.
Argumentation stage Protagonist defends his or her standpoint against the sometimes persistent criticism of the
antagonist by putting forward arguments to counter the antagonist’s objections or to remove the antagonist’s doubts on the acceptability of his standpoint.
Concluding stage Parties assess the extent to which the difference of opinion has been resolved and in
whose favor. If the protagonist withdraws his standpoint, the difference of opinion is resolved in favor of the antagonist; if the antagonist abandons his or her doubts, it is resolved in favor of the protagonist.
Table 7
Ideal model of a critical discussion in the form of a monologue (van Eemeren et al, 2002, p. 29)
Confrontation stage Speaker or writer establishes that a difference of opinion exists or threatens to arise. This can
be done by mentioning known objections or pointing out potential doubts.
Opening stage Speaker or writer makes it clear that he or she is prepared to resolve the difference of opinion
by following certain rules for argumentative discussion. The speaker of writer may briefly mention these rules and any starting points.
Argumentation stage Speaker or writer presents his or her argumentation. The speaker or writer might also refer to
the views of an opposing party.
Concluding stage Speaker or writer assesses to what extent the difference of opinion has been resolved by their
22 Of course, the authors note that the ideal model of a critical discussion, just as ideals in general, differs from what happens in reality during argumentative discourse:
The parties often do not go through all four of the discussion stages or not in the same order. Sometimes only one party declares that the difference of opinion has been decided in its favor before the argumentation stage has even been completed. Sometimes, in the course of the discussion, the parties realize they have failed to clearly identify what exactly they disagree on, so that it becomes necessary to go back to the confrontation stage. Elements of the different stages may be missing that are indispensable for the resolution of the difference of opinions. The discussion may also contain a great many elements (e.g., expressions of courtesy, jokes and anecdotes) that, without, directly contributing to the resolution, help to make the discussion go more smoothly (van Eemeren et al, 2002, p. 27).
In this light the ideal model of a critical discussion is and should be viewed as an abstract theoretical construct the purpose of which is more important to the analysis and evaluation of argumentation as a tool in these procedures. Since the aim of a critical discussion is to resolve a difference of opinion, the discourse that embodies this attempt in real-life situations can be reconstructed according to the model. In the analytical sense, the ideal model of a critical discussion can serve as tool for a systematic and constructive investigation of the discourse. For example, it can be used to make clear the steps that were taken to resolve a difference of opinion. Moreover, it may serve a heuristic function for identifying implicit discussion elements and the role that they serve in the resolution process. In the evaluative sense, the ideal model of a critical discussion can serve as a tool for identifying ‘where a real – life argumentative discussion goes wrong. It makes it possible to identify what necessary elements are missing or inadequately represented’ (van Eemeren et al, 2002, p.27). As far as more significant evaluations are concerned, the pragma-dialecticians claim that in order for a critical discussion to represent a reasonable attempt at resolving a difference of opinion, discussion participants must obey ten essential rules7. As van Eemeren states (2010, p. 7):
7 The pragma dialectical rules of a critical discussion (van Eemeren et al, 2002)
1. Freedom rule: Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.
2. Burden-of-proof rule: A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so.
3. Standpoint rule: A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.
23 Each of the rules constitutes a distinct standard or norm for critical discussions. Although the practical impact of violating the rules may vary from case to case, every rule violation, in whatever discussion stage it has been committed and by whatever party, is a discussion move that obstructs and hinders the resolution of the difference of opinion on the merits and must therefore be regarded as fallacious.
3.2 Analyzing argumentative discourse through the pragma-dialectical theory
The model of a critical discussion constitutes the starting point of the pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentative discourse. As mentioned in the previous section, the ideal model of a critical discussion is essentially a tool that can be used by the analyst for a multitude of purposes. It can be used as an aid in systematizing and describing how a real-life discussion proceeds. It can be used as a guide in determining what elements of the discussion are relevant for its analysis. Or it can be used as a normative reference to point out how an attempt to resolve a difference of opinion may have failed and in terms of what aspects. Therefore, the application of the ideal model to a real-life piece of discourse and its division according to the appropriate stages is the first step in a pragma-dialectical analysis.
4. Relevance rule: A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint.
5. Unexpressed premise rule: A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has left implicit.
6. Starting point rule: No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.
7. Argument scheme rule: A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argument scheme that is correctly applied.
8. Validity rule: The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises.
9. Closure rule: A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts.
10. Usage rule: Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently
clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations of the other party as carefully and accurately as possible.
24 This step is followed by building an analytical overview of the discourse under investigation. The advantage of the analytical overview is that it gives the analysis orderly guidelines for building an organized, coherent and insightful account of what it is that went on in a given discussion. ‘An analytic overview has great advantage in terms of oversight and discernment, especially in more complex discourse’ (van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 86). The analytical overview consists of four components, each of which can be generated from the critical discussion by using the ideal model as a guide. These four components are summarized in table 9 as follows:
Table 8
Components of analytical overview (van Eemeren et al., 1993)
Component Description Stage
1.Points at issue Propositions with respect to which standpoints are
adopted and called into question.
Confrontational stage
2.Positions that the parties concerned adopt with respect to these points
Who plays the part of the protagonist of which standpoint and who takes the role of the antagonist?
Opening stage
3.Survey of arguments that are explicitly or implicitly advanced in the discussion, including: 3.1Argumentation structure
3.2 Argument schemes
Determining how the arguments that are put forward to relate to one another in their support for the standpoint Determining what types of arguments are used in the support of the standpoint
Argumentation stage
25 By building an analytical overview the analyst, so to speak, makes a technical specification or a blueprint of the discourse in research. Not only does it specify the significant components of the discourse, like the issue regarding which argumentation has been advanced or the role that the individual engaged in argumentation takes on, but it also provides a meticulous dissection of the reasoning underlying the individual’s treatment of the issue. Thus, component three of the analytical overview gains great merit.
The argumentation structure portrays the magnitude and strength of the standpoint’s defense by outlining the arguments that are put forward in its regard and how they relate to one another. There are various possibilities to support a standpoint, which are classified into two categories – single argumentation and complex argumentation. Single argumentation means that a standpoint is supported using only one argument. Complex argumentation means that the standpoint is supported through the use of several arguments, the relationship between which can be multiple, coordinative or subordinate. Supporting a standpoint through the use of multiple argumentation, means providing a constellation of alternative defenses for one standpoint. The feature of multiple argumentation is that the arguments are as if not dependent on one another to support the standpoint and each constitute its absolute defense. In other words ‘each defense could theoretically stand alone’ (van Eemeren et al, 2002, p. 65). Supporting a standpoint through the use of coordinative argumentation means providing a constellation of reasons that depend on each other to support the standpoint, as each one taken separately would not amount to a strong or even a sufficient defense. Supporting a standpoint through the use of subordinative argumentation, means providing a constellation of arguments that support each other in a sequence, forming a vertical chain of justification. In other words ‘if the supporting argument for the initial standpoint cannot stand on its own, then it is supported by another argument, and if that argument needs support, then a further argument is added, and so on, until the defense seems conclusive’ (van Eemeren et al, 2002, p. 65).
Argumentation schemes portray the justificatory principle employed by the arguer in the defense of a standpoint (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst in Wagemans & Hitchcock, 2011 p.185). It might also be said that they depict the stereotypical patterns of the ways in which a human reasons. Argumentation schemes can be determined by the premise that a speaker or writer leaves unexpressed in the presentation of an argument to a standpoint. The unexpressed premise provides insight into the type of connection that the speaker or writer is making in his reasoning
26 between the standpoint and the argument. The pragma-dialectical theory has categorized argumentation schemes into three broad categories – symptomatic, causal and comparison. Each of these argumentation schemes encompasses additional variants and subtypes8.
The ultimate aim of the pragma-dialectical analysis is the evaluation of argumentative discourse according to the rules of the critical discussion, presented in the footnotes on pp.22-23 of this chapter. The reconstructed discourse in terms of the ideal model of a critical discussion and the analytical overview provide the analyst with structured and systemized data, from which the argumentative discourse can be evaluated, by observing whether the discussion contributions adhere to these rules, which constitute a reasonable attempt at resolving the dispute. Whilst this evaluation is undoubtedly an important and valuable asset of the pragma-dialectical theory, it exceeds the purpose of this thesis, as an attempt to show how the analytical tools and concepts of the pragma-dialectical theory can be used as instruments for extracting frames and identifying framing techniques. For this reason, we will not elaborate on argumentative discourse evaluation and instead turn to the concept of strategic maneuvering that provides analytical procedures for observing the rhetorical dimension of argumentative discourse.
3.3 Strategic maneuvering
As an extension of the pragma dialectical theory van Eemeren and Houtlosser have introduced the concept of strategic maneuvering which integrates ‘rhetorical insights into the pragma-dialectical framework for analysis and evaluation’ (van Eemeren & Garssen, 2012, p.43). The premise of the strategic maneuvering concept is as follows:
8 Variants and subtypes of symptomatic argumentation include: argumentation presenting something as an inherent
quality, argumentation presenting something as a characteristic part of something more general, argumentation from authority, argumentation from example, argumentation based on meaning of definition. Variants and subtypes of causal argumentation include: argumentation pointing to the consequence of a course of action, argumentation presenting something as a means to an end, argumentation emphasizing the nobility of the goal in order to justify its means. Variants and subtypes of argumentation based on comparison include: argumentation based on referring to a model, argumentation based on an analogy, argumentation based on principle of fairness (Wagemans & Hitchcock, 2011; van Eemeren et al, 2002).
27 In principle, language users performing speech acts do not do so with the sole intention of making the person to whom they address themselves understand what speech act they are performing; by means of those speech acts they rather hope to elicit from their addressees a particular response (verbal or otherwise). They do not only wish for their words to be understood, but they also want them to be accepted – and dealt with accordingly (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 36).
The same assumption applies to individuals presenting or engaging in argumentative discourse. As van Eemeren (2010, p. 39) claims, even though the participants of a critical discussion are concerned with a reasonable presentation or exchange of views, they are also ‘perhaps even primarily, interested in resolving the difference of opinion effectively in favor of their case, i.e. in agreement with their own standpoint or the position of those they represent.’ To put it more simply - they want to convince their addressee.
The inherent quest to convince, therefore, predetermines the need not only for reasonable but also for rhetorically effective contributions to the critical discussion. To account for these two dimensions in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, pragma-dialecticians make use of the strategic maneuvering concept. What strategic maneuvering implies is that every critical discussion move is made so as to form a reasonable and an effective contribution in attaining the desired success. In other words, by maneuvering strategically, arguers intentionally select and make moves to navigate toward the best possible position within the discussion in view of the circumstances and possibilities for making their best case (van Eemeren, 2010, p.40). Strategic maneuvering entails a specific handling of discourse in a way that is the ‘most optimal for the party concerned’ (van Eemeren, 2010, p.45).
Strategic maneuvering takes place throughout the length of the critical discussion and can be observed in all of the discursive choices that arguers make across each of the stage (van Eemeren & Garssen, 2012, p.44). Essentially, by maneuvering strategically in the confrontation stage, the arguers seek a definition of the difference of opinion that is not only reasonable, but also effective for their purposes. By maneuvering strategically in the opening stage, the arguers attempt to select not only a reasonable but also an effective point of departure for the discussion procedure. When it comes to the argumentation stage, the arguers need to select not only reasonable, but effective lines of attack. As for the concluding stage, the statement of results must equally meet the same characteristics (van Eemeren, 2010, p. 97).
Conceptually and analytically, strategic maneuvering manifests itself through three aspects that work simultaneously in achieving reasonableness and effectiveness in a critical
