Situating Framing as a discussion strategy within the Pragma-dialectical Framework

(1)

Situating Framing as a discussion strategy within the Pragma-dialectical Framework

Emily Higgins: 13350579

Thesis in Communication and Information Studies Instructor: Bart Garssen

(2)

ABSTRACT

Framing is a fractured paradigm. Its ambiguity stems from the multiple conceptualisations that exist in the literature, and its lack of a strong theoretical foundation. This thesis will explore the scope of the notion of framing, identifying the various types of frames that exist. Having identified framing as an object and a process, this thesis will focus on emphasis frames and explore how this type of framing can be situated within the pragma-dialectical framework.

With a pragma-dialectical foundation, it will be demonstrated how the notion of framing becomes less ambiguous and more concrete. Specifically, this thesis will demonstrate how framing can be considered as a set of coordinated strategic maneuvers. By conceptualisation framing in this way, it is demonstrated how framing can be considered a discussion strategy within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.

Key words: pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering, discussion strategies, frame theory

(3)

1. INTRODUCTION

There are many phenomenon in the field of communication that bring with them mystery and ambiguity. In such cases, scholars develop multiple theories aiming to improve the clarity and understanding of the way in which we may make use of such phenomenon in a larger communication apparatus. It renders true, of course, that such phenomenon be attractive areas of study for scholars who wish to untangle the mystery. It’s a scholar’s archaeological excavation, if you will.

Perhaps there has never been a more mysterious and intriguing phenomenon than that of framing. In the field of communication, the notion of framing tends to be uttered with both disdain and awe. It is disdainful to many scholars because it is for all intense and purposes an unidentifiable object. In our academic circle, we struggle to make sense of this abstract notion, ultimately struggling to answer the question: what is a frame?

We can point to various reasons as to why framing has remained a fractured paradigm (Entman, 1993, p. 51). As noted above, by its very nature it is unidentifiable. Unlike other communicative phenomenon, such as different types of argumentation or specific presentational devices, framing is an overarching notion that transcends the former. It has an omnipresence amongst other communicative phenomenon. This omnipresence is exceptionally difficult to conceptualise. Nevertheless, there exists multiple frame theories that have aided in the search for clarity (Entman 1993; Druckman 2001; Tversky and Kahneman 1981, 1987). However, with every attempt to conceptualise the notion, the concept of framing becomes increasingly scattered. Entman (1993) expresses the need for a universal understanding of the concept if there is any hope in determining how framing works in argumentative reality.

In addition to the level of fracture that exists amongst academics, it is also essential to stress the extent to which the notion is used outside of scholarly discourse. It is not necessary to have studied communication in order to have come across the term ‘framing’ or ‘frame’.

Most commonly the term is used outside of scholarly discourse in the context of media framing.

For instance, it is common to come across an expression like “I hate the media because they are framing Megan Markel as an evil person”. I choose this expression as an example of how most people interpret the notion. Other examples include when someone says “Don’t tell them you want to quit. Frame it as a health issue”. Both examples aim to demonstrate how the term framing is frequently used outside of scholarly discourse. Interestingly, when it is used in these contexts, people grasp what is meant by the term immediately. For instance, with regards to the first expression, it is understood that the speaker is expressing disdain for the way in which

(5)

the media has portrayed Meghan Markel. With regards to the second expression, it is understood that the speaker is advising someone to manipulate the way in which an employer interprets someone leaving their job. Despite the fact that the notion experiences comprehension outside of scholarly discourse, inside the academic circle the conceptualisation is plagued by inconsistency.

1.1 Methodology and research question

Thus is the justification for a persistent search for clarity in order to better use the concept in scholarly discourse. I proceed in this thesis to answer the research question: How can framing be considered a strategic maneuver within the pragma-dialectical framework?

This research question was developed based on the existing conceptualisations of the notion of framing. It was discovered that while there are a multitude of definitions, there lacks a larger theoretical apparatus in which to base our understanding of the concept. As is explored in Chapter 2, multiple types of framing have been identified in the literature and there are valuable insights relating to the psychological effects of framing. However, the notion of framing is severely limited by its weak theoretical foundation. This thesis will therefore aim to remedy this limitation by situating framing within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.

The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is beneficial to the analysis of framing for many reasons. Pragma-dialectics is a relatively new theory of argumentation as it was only recently developed in the 1970s by Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendotst at the University of Amsterdam. Despite its youth, pragma-dialectics has established a large theoretical framework that enables the analyst to apply theoretical considerations to argumentative reality. This is immensely advantageous to a phenomenon an abstract phenomenon like framing. For this alone, pragma-dialectics presents itself as the most favorable theory in which to study framing.

Furthermore, pragma-dialectics developed an analytical tool that is most beneficial to the notion of framing. Strategic maneuvering was developed by Van Eemeren and Houtlosser in 2002. It was developed to further strengthen the connection between theoretical considerations and argumentative reality. Moreover, strategic maneuvering incorporates a delicate balance between reasonableness and effectiveness. This is also beneficial for the analysis of framing because strategic maneuvering enables the analyst to understand how framing works in a dialectical discussion, and how it is effective as an argumentative move. In addition, strategic

(6)

maneuvering is unique in that it involves the selection from the topical potential, the adaptation to audience demand and a manipulation of presentational devices. All three aspects are exceptionally beneficial to the conceptualization of framing as it will enable an analysis of a frame that takes into account multiple argumentative moves and functions. This is in line with framing’s status as an omnipresent phenomenon. Both the theoretical foundation and an analysis of its effectiveness in argumentative reality are required to establish a better conceptualization of framing. Thus is what is offered by the pragma-dialectical framework.

I note here that others have also approached framing from the pragma-dialectical perspective. Notably, an MA thesis published by the University of Amsterdam, written by Valinciute in 2013, has a similar aim to situate framing with the pragma-dialectical framework.

However, our approaches divert where it concerns strategic maneuvering. For Valinciute, strategic maneuvering is an analytical tool used to analyze frames in argumentative reality. In contrast, this thesis develops the hypothesis that framing can in itself be considered a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers, and is directly correlated to our understanding of a discussion strategy.

Furthermore, mention must be given to Van Poppel (2013), a pragma-dialectical scholar, whose work focuses on a specific type of framing, goal-framing. Van Poppel’s work is significant to my hypothesis as it demonstrates that framing is already, to some extent, incorporated into the pragma-dialectal theory. However, it is important to note here that my hypothesis relates to emphasis frames as opposed to goal-frames. As such, this thesis aims to fill a significant gap in the literature.

1.2 Outline

I proceed with this thesis by completing a literature review of the notion of framing. This is valuable to the later analysis as it establishes the current conceptualizations of the notion, identifying the valuable insights that have already been developed. This literature review differs from other literature reviews of framing as it distinguishes between two important elements. In Chapter 2, first, a conceptualization of framing as an object is required to determine the various ways in which people use the term ‘framing’ and ‘frames’. Second, a conceptualization of framing as a process is required to determine how a frame is believed to be constructed. Both are fundamentally important in understanding the notion of framing, but it is imperative that both elements be considered separately in order to identify the insights that

(7)

exist and find further gaps in the literature. As will be demonstrated, there is more ambiguity that exists with the notion of framing as a process as opposed to the notion of framing as an object. Hence why this thesis will outline how a frame is constructed via a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers.

Chapter 3 will outline my theoretical approach, first detailing why pragma-dialectics is beneficial to the analysis of framing, with an overview of strategic maneuvering. Proceeding this, I will outline my hypothesis, that framing can be considered as a coordinated set of strategic maneuvers, otherwise called a discussion strategy. I will conclude this chapter by presenting a selection of small case studies, demonstrating how framing emerges as a discussion strategy in each discussion stage.

Finally, in Chapter 4, I present an extended analysis of a KLM press release. I begin to demonstrate my hypothesis with the small case studies in Chapter 3. However, in order to give my hypothesis increasing validity, it is important that I demonstrate how framing as a set of coordinated strategic maneuvers works in consecutive discussion stages in one text. For this analysis, I chose the KLM press release of 1999, in which KLM, a Dutch airline, responds to a scandal in an attempt to improve its image. It is identified in this analysis that KLM frame themselves as an innocent third party within the discussion. In this analysis, I will demonstrate the process through which this frame was constructed, taking a pragma-dialectical approach to the analysis of the critical discussion.

(8)

2. CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE NOTION OF FRAMING: A LITERATURE REVIEW

Many attempts have been made to conceptualise framing within the communication discipline.

Entman in particular understood the value of developing a more universal definition and appropriately featured framing as a “scattered conceptualisation” with an “omnipresence across the social sciences and humanities” (Entman, 1993, p. 51). The words frame and framing are so frequently used both inside and outside of formal scholarly discourse. The problem lies with a lack of consensus amongst relevant scholars with regards to a broad interpretation of frame theory. Entman remarks there is no existing definition that tells us how frames are embedded in texts, how they manifest themselves, and how they influence our thinking (Entman, 1993, p. 51).

In his 1993 publication, Entman aimed to deliver a preliminary contribution to the development of a general interpretation of frame theory by identifying the similarities that exist in the various uses of the term, and ultimately suggesting a better and more universal understanding of the phenomenon. By conducting a literature review of classic and relevant citations of the term ‘framing’, the conceptual analysis that follows provides readers with an updated attempt at identifying the various interpretations of framing theory within relevant disciplines.

Furthermore, I aid in the search for clarity by approaching the literature review with a step-by step process. The first step answers the question: what is framing? This question will address the notion of framing with respect to its object. By object, I am referring to the essence of a frame. When we point to something and call it a frame, what are we pointing to?

The second step answers the question: how is a frame constructed? This question will address the notion of framing with respect to its process. By process, I am referring to interpretations that deal with the process through which a frame is constructed. In other words, what happens when a frame is constructed?

The distinction between framing as an object and framing as a process is essential to detangling the ambiguity that surrounds it. Too often the term framing is used quite haphazardly without making it clear whether the author is describing a frame as the object or a frame as the process. Both elements are of course related to each other and in identifying the various definitions that exist, many a time both elements appear co-dependently in the same definition. It is however imperative, for the purpose of this conceptual analysis, that I do my

(9)

best to distinguish both elements. In doing so I am able to best identify the consensus and confusion that exists amongst scholars.

2.1 Conceptualizing the Notion of Framing as an Object

To begin, I turn to the sociological interpretations. Such interpretations tend to be developed by sociologists and there is a relative consensus that exists regarding the objectivity of a frame (Goffman, 1974; Gamson & Modigliani, 1987; Gitlin, 1980). Simply put, sociologists perceive framing to be a concept that provides meaning to reality.

Due attention must be given to Goffman. As a sociologist, Goffman’s seminal work, Frame Analysis (1974), provides an interesting basis and foreground to subsequent interpretations of framing that later emerged from the communication discipline. Goffman concerns himself with the social construction of reality and in this context, frames are a method through which we organise this reality. According to Goffman, an analysis of this social construction begins first with a distinction between two primary frameworks (1974, p. 21). The first is a “natural framework” which involves occurrences that people perceive to be

“undirected, unanimated, unguided [and] purely physical” (Goffman, 1974, p. 22). Such occurrences are determined by ‘natural’ factors and are free of human interference. A weather report is supposedly a good example of a natural framework (Goffman, 1974, p. 22). The second primary framework is the “social framework” (Goffman, 1974, p. 22). The social framework includes guided events that “incorporate the will, aim, and controlling effort of an intelligence” (Goffman, 1974, p. 22). An example of this ‘guided doing’ is the action of a person, such as a newscast, giving a report of the weather (Goffman, 1974, p. 23). This action is subject to human interference upon an otherwise natural occurrence (as portrayed in the first example). Goffman concludes that human interference manifests itself into “a frame of reference” that is projected by observers into the world around them (Goffman, 1974, p. 39).

2.1.1 The communicative and the psychological dimensions of framing

Goffman’s theory in Frame Analysis (1974) is exceptionally detailed and explores the social construction of reality in such depth that it is impossible to do his insights justice in this relatively small literature review. Nevertheless I feel it necessary to refer to Goffman’s

(10)

“schemata” or “schema” (1974, p. 21). The term “schemata” is used in many sociological insights (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Rumelhart, 1984; Schank & Abelson, 1977). However, similar to framing, the conceptualisations of schemata are ambiguous and lack consensus within the sociological discipline (Sewell, 1992). Nonetheless, “schemata” is relevant here because it is often closely related to the notion of framing. We see this when Goffman suggests that the term “schemata of interpretation” can be used as an alternative to the term “framework” (Goffman, 1974, p. 21). One must now ask how this aids in our understanding of framing. As a concept, schemata is best understood using the following definition by Fiske and Kinder:

Schemata constitute serviceable although imperfect devices for coping with complexity.

They direct attention to relevant information, guide its interpretation and evaluations, provide inferences when information is missing or ambiguous, and facilitate its retention (Fiske and Kinder, 1981, p. 173).

The concept of schemata is valuable in understanding the psychological dimensions of framing. As will be demonstrated below, this psychological dimension is present in many interpretations. Goffman’s insights foreground the way people think about reality and provide basic rules and assumptions that organise face to face interaction (Hartland, 1994; Manning, 1992). To offer a concluding set of statements that present Goffman’s interpretation of a frame as an object, a frame is a product of one’s construction of reality. It is part of a “schemata of interpretation” that enable individuals “to locate, identify, and label” (Goffman, 1974, p. 21).

“Primary frameworks” are the first step in understanding how one renders situations meaningful to oneself (Goffman, 1974). The sociological interpretations of a frame are relevant and provide valuable insights that pertain to the way we organise our daily experiences. I include sociological interpretations in this review as they form a large percentage of the literature on framing. To conclude, Goffman’s interpretations have been identified as a “very complicated and delicate mechanism”, one that is sometimes difficult to make use of in other contexts (Gamson, 1975, p. 604; Hartland, 1994).

Such is the reason I turn now to the communication discipline, where the interpretations of frames become more concrete and practical, providing a bridge between Goffman’s enigmatic conceptualisations and the ideal “general statement” that we strive to develop in frame theory (Entman, 1993, p. 51). When searching for the various interpretations of ‘framing’

that exist, Druckman (2001) suggests ways in which we can distinguish between the different

(11)

types of framing. The first level distinction that Druckman identifies is frames in communication and frames in thought (2001). This distinction is similar to that identified by Pan & Kosicki (1993) whereby “frames in thought” refer to the psychological dimension that have already been identified with regards to the term “schemata” (Fiske and Kinder, 1981, p.

173).

Druckman’s distinctions are also similar to Kinder & Sanders’ claim that frames function as an “internal structure of the mind” and as “devices embedded in political discourse” (1990, p. 164 and p. 74). Thus, a consensus in the literature is identified. A prominent psychological dimension exists to the conceptualisation of framing that is shared by multiple scholars (Goffman 1974; Fiske & Kinder 1981; Pan & Kosicki 1993; Kinder & Sanders 1990).

Just as multiple scholars extricate a psychological dimension to the concept of framing, so does Druckman extricate a communicative dimension. For Druckman, frames in communication are the words, images, phrases and presentation styles that are used by the speaker (Druckman, 2001, p. 227). While the distinction between frames in thought and frames in communication is helpful in unpacking the object and process of a frame, the latter definition lacks depth and does not adequately enable the reader to understand what exactly is meant by a frame in communication.

In contrast, frames in thought is given a more insightful explanation, perhaps because, as has already been established, the psychological dimension to framing is a distinction that is shared amongst multiple scholars. As a result, the definition of frames in thought is one that has benefitted from a certain degree of consensus. Frames in thought are defined as an

“individual’s (cognitive) understanding of a given situation” (Druckman, 2001, p. 227-228).

Here, the conceptualisation of framing as an object concerns an individual’s perception of the reality they find themselves in. In other words, “the frame reveals what an individual sees as relevant to understanding the situation” (Druckman, 2001, p. 228). This interpretation of a frame resembles Goffman’s as it is less concerned with a frame’s communicative properties as it is with its thought properties (Goffman, 1974).

2.1.2 Types of framing

Druckman makes such distinctions to introduce the term framing effect (Druckman, 2001). A framing effect supposedly occurs when frames in communication shape frames in thought (Druckman 2001, p. 228). In other words, a framing effect is what happens when both objects

(12)

meet and initiate a process. From this framing effect there are subsequent distinctions. The diagram below is useful in understanding the distinction between different types of frames.

(13)

Figure 1: A visual representations of Druckman’s classifications of frames as found in the literature (Druckman, 2001).

Frames in Communication

Words, images, phrases, and

presentation style that a speaker uses.

Frames in Thought

An individual’s cognitive understanding of a given situation. Reveals what an individual sees as relevant to understanding a situation.

Equivalency Framing Effect Frames cast logically equivalent information in a positive or negative light, manipulating the individual’s preferences.

Emphasis Framing Effect

By emphasising a subset of potentially relevant considerations, a speaker can lead individuals to focus on these considerations when constructing their opinions

Two distinct uses of the term frame and framing

Framing Effect

When frames in communication play an important role in shaping frames in thought.

(14)

2.1.2.1 Equivalency Framing Effects

The first framing effect identified by Druckman is the equivalency framing effect (2001, p.

228). The equivalency framing effect occurs when different, yet logically equivalent words or phrases are used to influence individual preferences. An example of this equivalency framing effect in practice is a widely cited experiment conducted by Tversky and Kahneman (1981, 1987). Tversky and Kahneman asked a group to respond to the following problem:

Imagine that the U.S. 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 estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:

If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.

If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.

Which of the two programs would you favour? : Program A or Program B (Tverksy and Kahneman, 1981; 1987)

Looking closely at the possible programs offered to the respondents, one can conclude that both outcomes will result in an expected 200 lives saved. The outcomes are therefore logically equivalent to one another, despite being framed differently. Program A is framed as a risk-averse option whereas Program B is framed as risk-seeking option. The results of this experiment found that 72% of the respondents chose Program A. When comparing these results to the results of the second group in the experiment, the influence of equivalency framing effects become more apparent. The second group were given the same scenario and were posed the same question, the programs offered were however different. In the second group the outcomes were worded with respect to the number of people that would die. This differs to the first group where the respondents were given outcomes that were worded with respect to the number of people that would be saved. The experiment concluded that the respondents preferred a risk- averse strategy when confronted with the number of people that could be saved, and a risk- seeking strategy when confronted with the number of people that could die. In this experiment, respondents were presented with logically equivalent information, and it was the different frames (risk-averse frame and a risk-seeking frame) that influenced peoples’ preferences.

(15)

Other scholars who have interpreted framing in a similar manner are Levin, Schneider and Gaeth who claim that frames cast “the same critical information in either a positive or a negative light”, which subsequently influences individual preferences (1998, p. 150). Such insights resemble the conclusions of Quattrone and Tversky (1988). Quattrone and Tversky demonstrate the effect of positive and negative light by quoting the example of a new economic program. In this hypothetical program, 98% percent of the population will be employed.

Quattrone and Tversky demonstrate that when the goal is to convince the audience of the merit of a new economic program, 98% employment is a better way to frame its success as opposed to quoting a 5% unemployment. The success of this framing influence is due to the positive evaluation generated from the 98% employment figure, as opposed to the 5% unemployment.

One can draw a similar conclusion from the work on the framing of survey questions (Bartels, 1998; Lacy, 1997; Zaller, 1992). It has been proven that survey questions are also susceptible to framing effects, particularly framing that makes use of the same logically equivalent wording in its survey questions. For instance, a survey published in the mid-1970s in the United Stated demonstrates the influence of logically equivalent frames. The survey found that Americans were more likely to ‘not allow’ a Communist to give a speech than they were to ‘forbid’ a Communist to give a speech (Druckman, 2001, p. 230). One would assume that ‘forbidding’ an action is more or less equivalent to ‘not allowing it’, therefore meeting the criteria of a logically equivalent frame. In this instance, ‘not allow’ was the preferred evaluation on behalf of the audience with respect to a Communist’s free speech. Thus, the results of the survey demonstrate how, yet again, a frame was able to influence the audience’s preference despite the presence of logically equivalent information.

The above interpretations and examples of equivalency frames are further demonstrations of consensus in the literature. While the scholars mentioned above may not use the same terminology, their conceptualizations of frames as a method of influence upon logically equivalent information exhibit a large degree of harmony and agreement.

2.1.2.2 Emphasis Framing Effects

Beyond equivalency framing, there exists another broad categorization of a framing effect that is emphasis framing effects (Druckman, 2001, p. 230). Emphasis framing effects do hold some similarities to equivalency framing, in that “they [cause] individuals to focus on certain aspects

(16)

or characterizations of an issue or problem instead of others” (Druckman, 2001, p. 230).

However, beyond this, the two notions differ quite drastically. Emphasis framing effects are a type of framing that is based on a presumption of passive accessibility process. This is the notion that people “automatically and subconsciously base their political judgements on whichever considerations happen to be accessible in memory” (Druckman, 2001, p. 235). As a result, this interpretation of framing is frequently used in communication studies in the political domain. A useful example of an emphasis framing effect is when a presidential candidate talks primarily about security issues. It can then be said the candidate has framed their campaign as a matter of security. As a result, this emphasis frame may influence voters to judge other candidates solely based on their security issues.

In addition, is possible to make a third distinction between two different types of emphasis framing. The first type refers to frames that “lead individuals to base their opinions on different considerations with little attention to overall opinions” (Druckman, 20021, p. 230).

For instance, when “an undeserved advantage frame leads Caucasian individuals to oppose affirmative action”, it can be said the frame has influenced their actions by drawing attention to their personal interests. In other words, by framing affirmative action as an underserved advantage, Caucasians are likely to evaluate the concept on that singular consideration, as opposed to developing an opinion that is formulated from the multitude of factors involved (Kinder and Sanders 1990, cited in Druckman 2001, p. 230). Conversely, the second type of emphasis framing refers to frames that “alter overall opinions with less attention to the underlying considerations” (Druckman, 2001, p. 230). For instance, it was found that support for government spending for the poor increased when it was framed as an overall advantage for everyone involved (Sniderman and Theriault 1999, cited in Druckman 2001, p. 230). In contrast, when it is framed as an initiative that will increase taxes, i.e drawing attention to underlying considerations, the support decreased (Haider-Markel and Joslyn 2001, cited in Druckman 2001, p. 231). The distinction between these two types of emphasis frame is sometimes difficult to grasp. It is also difficult to judge whether these distinctions are necessary. A relevant question is then, are these distinctions and categorizations helpful or do they add more confusion?

Interestingly, despite the general consensus that has been identified between the various types of frames that exist, there does exist some contention. For instance, Scheufelle takes a different view to framing and explicitly disagrees with the assumptions that have been made with regards to emphasis framing. For Scheufelle (2000), the process of passive accessibility is something that pertains to agenda-setting. Agenda-setting refers to the way in which the

(17)

media control news coverage by controlling the amount of coverage they give to news stories.

For Scheufelle, this process relies on a passive accessibility process, whereby salience is increased for particular news stories. In contrast, for Scheufelle, framing is based on prospect theory, whereby “subtle changes in the description of a situation invoke interpretive schemas that influence the interpretation of incoming information rather than making certain aspects of the issue more salient” (Scheufelle, 2000, cited from Druckman, 2001, p. 145). This interpretation of framing differs from other interpretations in that Scheufelle appears to explicitly deny the connection between framing and emphasis. In addition, the question could be asked, to what extent does Scheufelle’s definition of framing equate to equivalency framing?

The “subtle changes in the description of incoming information” could very well refer to the changes made in an equivalency frame when the incoming information is logically equivalent.

Such questions are interesting and demonstrate that despite a relative consensus, there nevertheless exists confusion and ambiguity when we compare interpretations of framing.

2.1.2.3 Goal-Framing

A third type of framing that can be identified in the literature is goal-framing. Goal- framing has been identified as a specific kind of framing, awarding it a place alongside equivalency framing and emphasis framing, otherwise named risky choice framing and attribute framing (Levin, Schneider & Gaeth, 1998). Goal-framing is supposedly quite successful at increasing the persuasiveness of messages by strategically choosing whether to advance argumentation that demonstrates positive consequences or negative consequences.

This type of framing is particularly popular in the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.

Specifically, goal-framing finds popularity amongst scholars who study pragmatic argumentation (van Poppel, 2012, 2013; Tversky & Kahneman 1981; Block & Keller 1995;

Rothman & Salovey 1997; Meyerowitz & Chaiken 1987). When studying pragmatic argumentation, scholars tend to focus on gain and loss frames (van Poppel, 2012, 2013).¹ A gain-frame works by advancing argumentation that exhibits the positive consequences of an action. For instance, ‘you should stop smoking because it will improve your lung capacity’.

This sentence is framed as an advantageous action. In contrast, a loss-frame works by

1 Pragmatic argumentation is defined by van Eemeren and Henkemans as a subtype of argumentation based on a causal relation. Pragmatic argumentation occurs “when the standpoint recommends a certain course of action and the argumentation consists of summing up the favourable consequences of adopting that course of action” (van Eemeren & Henkemans, 2016, p. 89).

(18)

advancing argumentation that exhibits the negative consequences of an action, this is effective when demonstrating what will happen if the individual were not to pursue the advised action.

For instance ‘you should stop smoking because it is harmful to those around you’. This sentence is now framed as a loss-frame because it is demonstrating the disadvantages of not doing the proposed action. This concludes the types of frames that exist in the literature:

equivalency frames, emphasis frames, and goal-frames.

2.1.3 Frames in communicative domains

I have so far identified multiple consensuses in the literature regarding framing as an object.

The identification of such patterns of interpretation in the literature is very helpful in unveiling the meaning of framing as an object. In order to go further and explore these meanings in more detail, it is important to cast an eye to the use of frames in specific communicative domains.

As has been noted, the term framing is used widely across all disciplines, and is used in various contexts within the communication discipline.

The political domain was eluded to when discussing emphasis framing effects as this type of framing is often used for the purpose of elite manipulation. In addition, there are many other communicative domains in which it is interesting to study the effects of framing. For the purpose of this literature review, I will focus on the domain of the media, as this is a domain that is particularly susceptible to framing. In fact, framing in the media is so popular that it is often times what people mean when they talk about a frame or the process of framing something (Entman 1993, 1991; Graber, 1988; Tuchman, 1978; Entman & Rojecki, 1993; Gitlin 1980;

Gamson & Modigliani, 1987; Pan & Kosicki, 1993; Kuypers, 2009; Weaver, 2007; Scheufele, 2000, to name a few). Looking at framing from the specific context of the media enables the identification of further patterns and trends with regards to the conceptualization of framing.

In particular, framing in the media is concerned with emphasis framing effects.

As noted above, emphasis framing effects are about emphasizing certain elements in a discussion in order to make them more easily accessible to the audience’s memory. This closely resembles the concept of salience. Salience is a very common term in media studies. Entman defines salience as “making a piece of information more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences” (1993: 53). As is apparent from this definition, the concept of salience is closely related to the concept of emphasis, as is used in the term emphasis framing effects. Given the

(19)

close similarity between the two definitions, I suggest that media framing be included as a type of emphasis framing.

This suggestion is in-keeping with the wide array of literature relating to framing in the media. Similar to the scholars previously mentioned, scholars of media communication exhibit a consensus regarding the two dimensions of frames, the psychological and the communicative.

As is expressed by Entman, “news frames exist at two levels: as mentally stored principles for information processing and as characteristics of the news text” (1991, p. 7). One cannot ignore the overwhelming similarity that shows a harmonious agreement between most scholars that, even in the media, frames exist in the communicative dimension and the psychological.

2.1.3.1 Types of frames in the media

Similar to the types of frames that have been identified above, one can identify specific media frames. As has been mentioned, agenda-setting is often considered to be a type of media framing, whereby the frame dictates the salience of various news stories (Weaver, 2007).

Weaver proposes a second type of framing in the media, a “second-level agenda setting”

(2007). This second-level “examines the relative salience of attributes of issues” (Weaver, 2007, p. 142). While I refer to these as ‘types’ of media framing, it might also be best to categories them has distinctions in media framing because a ‘type’ suggests it is a frame different to the others. In this instance, Weaver’s distinctions suggest that the media frame works to become more detailed and focused. However, there is a limit to the number of classifications you can make in a literature review of framing. At a certain point the conceptualisations become too complex. For this reason, I maintain a two term classification system in which ‘dimensions’ and ‘types’ are used.

To continue with this classification, Kuypers (2009) introduces the idea of three types of media framing. The first he refers to as gatekeeping, whereby the media simply decides what news story to cover. Subsequently, the media frames the news story through the process of agenda-setting. This dictates how much attention a story is given. In other words, how much salience a story is given. Finally, the media can further frame the story through the process of agenda-extension, whereby the frame guides how the story is told (Kuypers, 2009). Kuypers’

‘types’ of frames appear to become increasingly focused. Interestingly, this resembles Entman’s framing locations which will be discussed in the following chapter.

(20)

To conclude, the conceptualization of framing as an object is a difficult one as the plethora of literature that exists on the subject is intertwined with each scholar’s own predispositions, pertinent to their own discipline. This makes for a scattered concept that is limited by its lack of a universal definition. This chapter aimed to identify the various notions of what a frame is. In other words, when we point to something and call it a frame, what are we pointing to? The answer to this question is aided by a consensus amongst most scholars, that framing is a concept with two broad dimensions. Each scholar refers to such dimensions in different ways. For the purpose of this thesis, I refer to them as the communicative dimension and the psychological dimension. Both dimensions come together to form a framing effect (Druckman, 2001, p. 228). Moreover, there is a broad distinction in the literature between different framing effects. I refer to these distinctions as different types of framing. Equivalency frames and emphasis frames are best understood as the broad types of framing that exist in the literature, with media framing classified as an emphasis frame. In addition, there is a significant area of study devoted to goal-framing via pragmatic argumentation. Goal-framing is therefore awarded the status of a type of framing. A conceptualization of framing as an object has thus been delivered. When we point to a frame, we are pointing at either an equivalency frame, an emphasis frame or a goal-frame.

2.2 Conceptualizing the Notion of Framing as a Process

As noted above, an understanding of framing as an object has been dealt with by identifying the different types of frames. Thus answers the question, what is a frame? We must now turn to the second step in the literature review, conceptualizing the notion of framing as a process.

In this step, I deal with the question: How is a frame constructed?

As noted above, framing as an object and framing as a process are very much intertwined in each scholarly definition. For instance, in identifying an emphasis frame as a framing type, the process through which an emphasis frame is constructed has already to some extent been revealed. An emphasis frame increases the salience of certain information, initiating the passive accessibility process, whereby an individual is able to easily access the information that was made salient. As a result, the individual’s judgements are influenced by the salient information.

The overall effect is that the individual was influenced by the emphasis frame.

Similarly, the process through which an equivalency frame is constructed was revealed.

Logically equivalent information are presented in different ways, one of which has a

(21)

significantly larger influence on the audience. This is often achieved when evaluative words are used which offer positive evaluations in comparison to their negative counterparts, i.e unemployment vs employment; lives saved vs lives lost. When such logically equivalent information is used to influence an individual’s judgement, an equivalency frame was used.

While these processes offer some insight into the construction of a frame, it is not enough to consider the relevant questions satisfactorily answered. I proceed with my review by focusing on the processes involved in emphasis framing. When comparing the three types of framing, emphasis framing appears to be the broadest classification and as such, its conceptualization as an object and as a process warrants the most attention. Therefore, I continue this paper by looking specifically at the conceptualization of emphasis framing as a process, and later specifying how emphasis frames can be considered a strategic maneuver. For the remainder of this chapter, I must then ask the question: What communicative devices are used to construct an emphasis frame?

In an attempt to unearth the answer to this question I refer to Gamson & Modigliani (1989) as they suggest five devices that signify the use of frames: metaphors, examples, catchphrases, depictions and visual images. This is similar to Entman’s suggestion that “by providing, repeating and thereby reinforcing words and visual images”, salience is achieved (1991, p. 7). Such communicative devices are valuable in understanding the process through which a frame is constructed as we can begin to see what is in a frame.

An additional valuable insight from Entman concerns the various locations of a frame in a text. According to Entman, there are four framing locations: the communicator, the text, the receiver, and the culture (1993, p. 52). The communicator makes “conscious or unconscious framing judgements in deciding what to say, guided by frames (often called schemata) that organize belief systems” (Entman 1993, p. 52). The text “contains frames, which are manifested by the presence or absence of certain key words, stock phrases and stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). With regards to the receiver, Entman understands this location to concern a receivers thinking and the frames that guide such thinking. The culture is

“the stock of commonly invoked frames” (Entman, 1993, p. 53). While Entman refers to the above elements as locations, I think it useful to interpret them as one of the steps involved in constructing a frame. For instance, Entman’s locations unearth a step by step process in which the communicator makes decisions relating to the information he or she chooses to relay, the text then demonstrates this information using certain communicative devices, this subsequently influence’s the audience, i.e. the receiver. The culture location does not fit perfectly in this

(22)

suggested step by step process. Admittedly, the suggestion to view framing locations as a step by step process does have its limits. However, it does appear to add value to Entman’s somewhat abstract understanding of location and contributes significantly to the conceptualization of framing as a process. Therefore, Entman’s culture location can be best included in this step by step construction as a valuable 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 reciever.

This cultural guide therefore helps the author select the frames that can influence the “thinking of most people in the social grouping” (Entman, 1993, p. 53). Entman’s locations thus provide a preliminary understanding of how a frame comes to be constructed.

Also of interest to the conceptualization of framing as a process are the use of narratives in framing. Entman suggests “frames reside in the specific properties of the news narrative”

(1991, p. 7). Gamson and Modigliani make similar references to the story lines in frames that provide meaning (1987, p. 143). These narratives are made up of the various communicative devices that work together to construct a frame “render[ing] one basic interpretation more readily discernible, comprehensible and memorable than others” (Entman, 1991, p. 7). As a communicative phenomenon, narratives provide a depth of insight. Given the space limitation of this thesis, I am not able to go into further detail. However, it is important to acknowledge the role that narratives play in the process of frame construction.

To conclude, there lacks in the literature a complete theoretical apparatus that enables the analyst to understand the process through which a frame is constructed. Some answers can be found in the literature that relate to the question, what communicative devices are used to construct a frame? Processes like the passive accessibility process, evaluative judgements and pragmatic argumentation, shed light on how emphasis frames, equivalency frames and goal- frames work in practice. Similarly, multiple communicative devices involved in frame construction have been identified, e.g metaphors, examples, catchphrases, depictions and visuals (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). Such devices answer the question, what is in a frame?

However, it is not enough to identify the communicative elements that are in frames. While important, they still fail to answer the question: how is a frame constructed?

The answers found in the literature are therefore hindered by a weak analysis that is unable to connect the communicative devices used to construct a frame. While some insights reveal ways of making certain information salient, this does not provide a satisfactory analysis of the process of constructing a frame. The conceptualization of the notion of framing as a process is therefore more scattered than that of the notion of framing as an object.

(23)

3. THE PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL APPROACH

In this chapter I will explain my theoretical approach, the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (henceforth referred to as pragma-dialectics). I select this theory as my main theoretical approach for two reasons. The first relates to pragma-dialectics’ mission to render argumentation theory more applicable both as a theoretical application within the communication discipline and as a practical method of analysis for real life argumentation. The second reason relates to pragma-dialectics’ ability to best fit the aim of this thesis, to situate framing as a strategic maneuver. Within pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering was developed as an extension to the original theory in an attempt to further strengthen the theory’s application to argumentative reality. As such, pragma-dialectics is the ideal theory in which to develop a better analytical and theoretical apparatus of framing.

Chapter 3.1 outlines pragma-dialectics as a theory of argumentation, paying close attention to the elements that are most relevant to this paper. Chapter 3.2 gives an overview of strategic maneuvering as an analytical tool in the pragma-dialectical theory, demonstrating the various considerations that need to be made when completing a thorough analysis of the strategic maneuvering in a critical discussion.

3.1 Overview of the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation

Pragma-dialectics was developed by van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst in the 1970s at the University of Amsterdam. As stated above, it was developed with the aim to provide a more encompassing theory of argumentation. Pragma-dialectics establishes a large theoretical apparatus that enables the analyst to apply theoretical considerations to argumentative reality.

It is distinguishable from other theories of argumentation in that it is part of a broader scientific enterprise in normative pragmatics whereby a connection between the descriptive pragmatic and the normative dialectical is valued (van Eemeren, 1986, 1990). The pragmatic dimension views argumentation as a series of speech acts, a specific from of language use that always takes place within the context of an argumentative discourse between two parties. The dialectical dimension views argumentation as a regulated discussion, and concerns itself with the various dialectical rules. As a normative research program, pragma-dialectics is designed to combine both dimensions. Argumentation is thus viewed in this context, as a series of speech acts taking place within a regulated critical discussion.

(24)

3.2 Overview of Strategic Maneuvering as an Analytical Tool in the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation

The above section details the elements of pragma-dialectics that are most relevant to my analysis. Following the initial development of pragma-dialectics, an extended theory of pragma-dialectics was introduced in 2002 by van Eemeren and Houtlosser. In this extended theory, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002) further strengthen the connection between the original theory and argumentative reality. This is achieved by integrating the strategic design of argumentative discourse with the existing theoretical apparatus (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2002). Strategic maneuvering balances two key elements that are prominent in many argumentative theories, effectiveness and reasonableness. The importance of reasonableness had previously been established in pragma-dialectics. As a core principle in pragma-dialectics, reasonableness is the foundation of a regulated critical discussion that is resolved on its merit (van Eemeren, 2010).

However, effectiveness was yet to be incorporated into the theory. The importance of effectiveness in communication is nothing new. The value of effectiveness has been established in many theories of communication, dating back to Aristotle, who viewed rhetoric as the art of persuasion (Hill, 2003). Since then, effectiveness has been considered an important element of argumentation, and has remained popular within the communication discipline.

In this extended theory of pragma-dialectics, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2010) introduce effectiveness as an important element in their theoretical apparatus. Yet, both scholars maintain that their theory of argumentation did not turn its sole focus to the principle of effectiveness. Precisely, strategic maneuvering was developed to demonstrate the tension between effectiveness and reasonableness, and to stress that one should not overrule the other.

The assumption is that an arguer must maintain reasonableness by advancing argumentative moves which obey the various dialectical rules that regulate a critical discussion. However, crucially, the arguer is simultaneously aiming to advance effective argumentation that will persuade the other party of his or her standpoint. Yet, in pursuing this effectiveness, the arguer must not overstep the boundaries and become fallacious in his or her attempts to be persuasive.

Thus, effectiveness and reasonableness become part of a balancing act, this act was named strategic maneuvering. In other words, the arguer must be strategic in his or her choices for

(25)

maximum persuasive effect, while maneuvering between the dialectical rules, of which remain an important part of the critical discussion (van Eemeren, 2010).

This process of strategic maneuvering is achieved through the strategic maneuvering triangle (van Eemeren 2010, p. 93-96). In this triangle, three aspects of strategic maneuvering are demonstrated. The first aspect involves a selection from the topical potential. Here, the analysis identifies the arguments that have been advanced by the protagonist and aims to determine why the protagonist selected those particular arguments. For instance, why did they choose that argument over other possible arguments? And, why were they expected to be effective?

The second aspect is the adaptation to audience demand, otherwise referred to as audience adaptation. In basic terms, adaptation to audience demand involves the ways in which the arguer has selected, and or adapted, argumentation to specifically suit the audience. The analysist must therefore ask themselves, what effect does the audience have on the argumentative moves that were advanced? And, were these moves influenced by the specific audience? Finally, the third aspect of strategic maneuvering is the exploitation of presentational devices. This involves the various presentational or stylistic devices that the arguer has used to deliver his or her argument. The analyst must ask themselves, why were these stylistic devices used? And, how are these devices effective in persuading the audience?

As is apparent from the representation of these three aspects in a triangle, they are all interdependent. When one strategic maneuver is made clear in the argumentative discussion, it is likely that it has effects on other aspects. The interconnectedness of these distinguishable aspects is what makes strategic maneuvering a valuable analytical tool, bringing the theory of pragma-dialectics closer to argumentative reality.

3.3 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

(26)

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.

(27)

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

(28)

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).

(29)

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).

Situating Framing as a discussion strategy within the Pragma-dialectical Framework