A model for the pragmatic analysis of framing

Content-oriented framing analyses (Mathess & Kornig 2008) generally assume that there is a simple relation between words and frames: a word used in the description of a perceived reality activates (Lakoff 2010) or triggers (Stibbe 2015) a frame which thereby promotes a particular interpretation of the perceived reality in question (Entman 1993). Indeed, in some analyses it is a point that such framing effects can be obtained independent of co-textual and contextual factors (Lakoff 2010). By contrast, pragmatic studies suggest that even a seemingly simple reference is a very complex relation mediated by a multitude of co-textual and contextual factors (Clark & Bangerter 2006), inter alia, the indicated force of the speech act (Searle 1996/1969), the indicated social motive or purpose of the genre (Miller 1984, Bazerman 1994), the information structure (Clark & Haviland 1977), the common ground (Clark 1996), the maxims and implicatures (Grice 1975, Levinson 2000), the interactional framework (Goffman 1974) or activity type (Levinson 1979), the media (Persson 2019) and the previous and subsequent utterances (Clark & Bangerter 2006). Hence, these studies question the idea of a simple relation between words and framing effects. As a matter of fact, the idea of a simple relation between words and framing effects is also in conflict with the concept of frame originally suggested by Bateson; this concept implies that the relation between words and sentences on the one hand and objects and events on the other, relies on a complex set of metalinguistic rules (Bateson 2000/1955).
Based on pragmatics studies of natural language understanding and Bateson's metacommunicative concept of framing, this paper proposes a model for framing analysis that systematically incorporates the co-textual and contextual factors affecting the relation between a framing device and a potential framing effect. The factors are accounted for under three dimensions: 1) the dimension of social action covering, inter alia, the indicated genre, the indicated illocutionary force and rhetorical relations, 2) the sociocognitive dimension covering, inter alia, the information structure, the common ground, markedness, maxims and implicatures, and 3) the dimension of interaction covering, inter alia, the media and its affordances, the activity type, the domain of discourse, intertextuality, the preceding and subsequent utterances and dialogue structuring devices.
The model is best suited for qualitative analyses. However, the model shall also raise awareness of the complexity of the relation between a given word and a potential framing effect and serve as a basis for a reflection on the feasibility and risks of quantitative content-oriented framing analyses.Content-oriented framing analyses (Mathess & Kornig 2008) generally assume that there is a simple relation between words and frames: a word used in the description of a perceived reality activates (Lakoff 2010) or triggers (Stibbe 2015) a frame which thereby promotes a particular interpretation of the perceived reality in question (Entman 1993). Indeed, in some analyses it is a point that such framing effects can be obtained independent of co-textual and contextual factors (Lakoff 2010). By contrast, pragmatic studies suggest that even a seemingly simple reference is a very complex relation mediated by a multitude of co-textual and contextual factors (Clark & Bangerter 2006), inter alia, the indicated force of the speech act (Searle 1996/1969), the indicated social motive or purpose of the genre (Miller 1984, Bazerman 1994), the information structure (Clark & Haviland 1977), the common ground (Clark 1996), the maxims and implicatures (Grice 1975, Levinson 2000), the interactional framework (Goffman 1974) or activity type (Levinson 1979), the media (Persson 2019) and the previous and subsequent utterances (Clark & Bangerter 2006). Hence, these studies question the idea of a simple relation between words and framing effects. As a matter of fact, the idea of a simple relation between words and framing effects is also in conflict with the concept of frame originally suggested by Bateson; this concept implies that the relation between words and sentences on the one hand and objects and events on the other, relies on a complex set of metalinguistic rules (Bateson 2000/1955).
Based on pragmatics studies of natural language understanding and Bateson's metacommunicative concept of framing, this paper proposes a model for framing analysis that systematically incorporates the co-textual and contextual factors affecting the relation between a framing device and a potential framing effect. The factors are accounted for under three dimensions: 1) the dimension of social action covering, inter alia, the indicated genre, the indicated illocutionary force and rhetorical relations, 2) the sociocognitive dimension covering, inter alia, the information structure, the common ground, markedness, maxims and implicatures, and 3) the dimension of interaction covering, inter alia, the media and its affordances, the activity type, the domain of discourse, intertextuality, the preceding and subsequent utterances and dialogue structuring devices.
The model is best suited for qualitative analyses. However, the model shall also raise awareness of the complexity of the relation between a given word and a potential framing effect and serve as a basis for a reflection on the feasibility and risks of quantitative content-oriented framing analyses.Content-oriented framing analyses (Mathess & Kornig 2008) generally assume that there is a simple relation between words and frames: a word used in the description of a perceived reality activates (Lakoff 2010) or triggers (Stibbe 2015) a frame which thereby promotes a particular interpretation of the perceived reality in question (Entman 1993). Indeed, in some analyses it is a point that such framing effects can be obtained independent of co-textual and contextual factors (Lakoff 2010). By contrast, pragmatic studies suggest that even a seemingly simple reference is a very complex relation mediated by a multitude of co-textual and contextual factors (Clark & Bangerter 2006), inter alia, the indicated force of the speech act (Searle 1996/1969), the indicated social motive or purpose of the genre (Miller 1984, Bazerman 1994), the information structure (Clark & Haviland 1977), the common ground (Clark 1996), the maxims and implicatures (Grice 1975, Levinson 2000), the interactional framework (Goffman 1974) or activity type (Levinson 1979), the media (Persson 2019) and the previous and subsequent utterances (Clark & Bangerter 2006). Hence, these studies question the idea of a simple relation between words and framing effects. As a matter of fact, the idea of a simple relation between words and framing effects is also in conflict with the concept of frame originally suggested by Bateson; this concept implies that the relation between words and sentences on the one hand and objects and events on the other, relies on a complex set of metalinguistic rules (Bateson 2000/1955).
Based on pragmatics studies of natural language understanding and Bateson's metacommunicative concept of framing, this paper proposes a model for framing analysis that systematically incorporates the co-textual and contextual factors affecting the relation between a framing device and a potential framing effect. The factors are accounted for under three dimensions: 1) the dimension of social action covering, inter alia, the indicated genre, the indicated illocutionary force and rhetorical relations, 2) the sociocognitive dimension covering, inter alia, the information structure, the common ground, markedness, maxims and implicatures, and 3) the dimension of interaction covering, inter alia, the media and its affordances, the activity type, the domain of discourse, intertextuality, the preceding and subsequent utterances and dialogue structuring devices.
The model is best suited for qualitative analyses. However, the model shall also raise awareness of the complexity of the relation between a given word and a potential framing effect and serve as a basis for a reflection on the feasibility and risks of quantitative content-oriented framing analyses.