applying the pragma-dialectical theory to framing …
Post on 17-May-2022
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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 APPENDIX 64
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
Table 12. Case study strategic maneuvering results 55
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
4 Percentage reflects year of the book publication.
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 Lithuania, parliamentary debates are televised live on a designated national TV channel as well as on the Internet.
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
argumentation.
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
4.Conclusion that is reached Established or projected outcome of the discussion Concluding 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
28
discussion for the ultimate aim of convincing the opponent. The first aspect of strategic
maneuvering pertains to topical selection. By topical selection, van Eemeren (2010, p.96) refers
to the argumentative choices that are made from the spectrum of possibilities that are available
for the given issue in the circumstances of the given discussion and its point in stage. In other
words, every theme and every step in the critical discussion regarding the central issue has a
potentially manifold treatment and topical selection allows identifying the specific approach that
the arguer takes to make his contributions the most optimal in light of the ultimate aim. More
specifically, topical selection can be identified by observing in what terms the difference of
opinion is defined, what scope the difference of opinion is given, what themes the arguer selects
for the discussion, or what types of arguments or lines of attack are picked for the defense or
rejection of a standpoint.
The second aspect of strategic maneuvering pertains to audience adaptation. According to
van Eemeren (2010, p.108) effectiveness is reached when the discursive moves made throughout
the process of argumentation ‘connect well with the views and preferences of the people they are
directed at, so that they agree with these people’s frame of reference and will be optimally
acceptable.’ Audience adaptation is achieved through the selection or omission of discursive
moves that may be counterproductive in convincing the audience. This may entail the selection
of specific kinds of arguments that will be considered effective within the audience, or by the
“avoidance of unsolvable contradictions” between the arguer and his addressees (van Eemeren,
2010, p.112). When it comes to a discussion between two individuals or when argumentative
discourse is directed at one or few addressees, who are known to the speaker or writer, audience
adaptation might not pose great difficulty. Audience adaptation becomes problematic, however,
when the audience is heterogeneous, consisting of a mixture of individuals who may or may not
share the same preferences. In cases like these, the arguer may attempt to adjust to preferences of
the audience, who are considered to be of primary importance, i.e. primary audiences. For
example, when two politicians are engaged in a publicly televised debate before a presidential
election, they attempt to not so much convince each other, as the spectators whose favorable
judgment is their main goal. For this reason, the argumentative discourse moves are tailored to
target their preferences and not the preferences of the opponent. Another approach that can be
taken to adjust to the preferences of a heterogeneous audience is by presenting a constellation of
arguments, each of which is independently directed at a specific target group within the
29
audience. Such approach can be recognized in electoral campaigns, when politicians must
simultaneously address numerous expectations.
The third aspect of strategic maneuvering pertains to presentational devices. According to
van Eemeren (2010, p.118), ‘when maneuvering strategically, speakers or writers are not just
trying to make the argumentative moves that suit them well and agree with audience demand, but
they also make an effort to present their moves in a specific way.’ In other words, individuals
engaged in argumentative discourse, also polish their language, which along with topical
selection and audience adaption works to facilitate the effectiveness of their speech in
convincing the addressees. Taking note of presentational devices stems from the assumption that
whenever faced with communicative situations, individuals have an array of possibilities for
linguistic expression from the available repertoire. Even if the discourse seems neutral in style,
‘this impression is in fact as much the result of a presentation choice – functioning to achieve a
strategic purpose by giving the move concerned a particular appearance’ (van Eemeren, 2010, p.
120). Determining the presentation devices used within discourse may include taking note of the
use of particular registers, the choices made in syntactic, semantic and stylistic presentational
means and even whether certain contributions to the discussion are presented in an implicit or
indirect manner.
Therefore, with this chapter on pragma-dialectics and its extension by the concept of
strategic maneuvering, we have covered the essential aspects of the theory that are pertinent to its
comprehension and application. We have noted that pragma-dialectics is a theory of
argumentation, where argumentative discourse is envisioned as a critical discussion. This notion
of a critical discussion paves way for multiple procedures of argumentative discourse analysis.
These procedures will be vigorously used and applied in the next chapter of this thesis in the
attempt to generate a new method for framing research and consequently answer our central
question, namely – how can the pragma dialectical theory be used for framing analysis, more
precisely, frame extraction and the identification of techniques used to construct the frame.
30
Chapter 4: applying the pragma-dialectical theory for analyzing frames and framing techniques
After having illuminated the concept of framing and the pragma-dialectical theory, the aim of
this chapter will be to build a method, through which the extraction of frames and the
identification of techniques used to build those frames could be approached and analyzed by
using the analytical tools provided in the pragma-dialectical theory. Each step of the method will
be presented in its sequence of application, along with an elaboration on its analytical purpose,
process and value to framing analysis. However, prior to explaining this method, we will first
attempt to make clear the significance of introducing an argumentative dimension to framing
analysis, by bridging the conceptualization of argumentation and the conceptualization of
framing to expose their interconnecting points.
4.1 The importance of argumentation in framing analysis
Argumentation is an inherent part of discourse on public issues. For one, democratic regimes
have implemented requirements for transparency and accountability, therefore, public matters
and, most importantly, opinions on public matters will be less likely independent of
justifications, in other words arguments. Politicians are frequently simply bound to engage in
argumentative discourse when discussing public issues. Most importantly, however, public
issues are inherently connected to some further actions, such as policy implementation, for
example (Sellers, 2010, p.4). Such further actions often require support, be it either from fellow
politicians, interest groups, journalists, or the public at large and this is what drives the need not
only for argumentative discourse but for framing as well (see Kosicki in Lavrakas, 2007; also
Sellers, 2010). At this point it is already possible to see that argumentation and framing have a
symbiotic relationship not only in their aims, but also in their procedural interconnection. As
noted in Chapter 2, the aim of framing is essentially directed at cultivating support for a
particular treatment of an issue. This aim is achieved through a specific conduct of discourse on
that issue with the hopes of building a certain perspective that will guide addressees to its desired
interpretation. Similarly, as Perelman states:
31
The aim of argumentation is not to deduce consequences from given premises; it is rather to increase adherence of the members of an audience to theses that are presented for their consent (…) argumentation does not aim solely at gaining a purely intellectual adherence. Argumentation very often aims at inciting action, or at least, at creating a disposition to act (1982, p.9).
The theory of pragma-dialectics adequately accounts for such conceptualization of
argumentation theoretically and analytically. When discourse in the pragma-dialectical theory is
envisioned and subsequently reconstructed as a critical discussion, it constitutes an attempt not
only to have a reasonable presentation or exchange of views on a given issue by the use of
arguments, but, also, to convince an existing or an anticipated audience of the acceptability of a
standpoint adopted in regard to this issue. In plain, the speakers or writers are essentially seen as
attempting to persuade their addresses by way of removing their potential or existing doubts or
criticism. In framing then, argumentation becomes a necessary tool for achieving its aims. Or, in
other words, framing and argumentation can be seen to hold a relationship of dependence.
According to Sellers (2010, p. 11), when politicians engage in discourse on public issues, they
communicate specific messages in their regard. These messages include the issue itself and the
arguments used to support it. ‘The arguments’, the author claims, ‘include the politician’s
preferred position on the issue, as well as reasons to adopt this position. The arguments frame the
politician’s position in a manner intended to attract greater support from target audiences,
ranging from legislators to the general public’. At the same time, argumentation becomes a vital
component of building the perspective – a frame - that will act as an interpretation guide for the
audience. Kinder and Nelson (2005, p.103) argue notably in this regard that ‘frames are
arguments and justifications embedded in political discourse.’ For these reasons, it follows that
the argumentative dimension of discourse should be a critical consideration in framing analysis,
because in the conceptual sense it is, first, an integral component of discourse on public issues,
second, it is an integral component of achieving the aim of framing and, third, it is an integral
component of building a frame.
None the less, the consideration of argumentation in framing analysis has significant
analytical value. It can be said that the argumentative elements of discourse will serve as
indicators in their own merit of the frames that a speaker is building. Note that whilst standpoints
and arguments advanced for their justification will not necessarily provide a conclusive answer
to the frame projected in the discourse, since argumentation, for example, may not be extensive,
they will, however, guide the analyst to the direction that a speaker or writer is taking in their
32
treatment of the issue. What is more, the argumentative elements will provide a noteworthy point
of reference for the justification of extracted frames from the analyzed discourse. From a
theoretical perspective standpoints and the reasons advanced for their defense are seen as
commitments that speakers or writers make in regard to their position, which they can be held
accountable to throughout the duration of the discourse. In this sense, analytical investigation
results will become not purely a matter of interpretation, but empirically, or at times, logically
justifiable representations of the discourse. Therefore, the consideration of argumentation in
framing analysis also has an analytical value: it can guide the analyst in building a notion of the
frame in construction and it can act as a justificatory reference for the extracted frame.
4.2 The method
For the reasons outlined above, we will move on to introduce a method that will bridge
argumentation and framing, providing a coherent, systematic, insightful and justifiable procedure
for extracting frames and identifying techniques used for their construction. This method will be
based on the pragma-dialectical analytical procedures aided by the use of Entman’s
conceptualization of framing.
4.2.1 Step zero: recognizing the argumentative dimension of the text
Application of the pragma-dialectical theory to discourse analysis has a necessary requirement,
which is that the discourse must be recognized as fully or at least partially argumentative. As
soon as the discourse can be recognized as such, the researcher can apply the pragma-dialectical
theoretical framework, concepts and analytical methods. Therefore, the initial step or else, step
zero of our proposed method entails recognizing the argumentative dimension of the chosen text
in this way making it viable for a pragma-dialectical analysis in the endeavor of frame extraction
and the identification of framing techniques.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, the argumentative dimension of discourse should not be seen
as a predicament, as argumentation is not only a frequent mode of communication, but, also,
pervading likely most of its spheres. Classifying a text as argumentative implies that the speaker
or writer is expressing a standpoint, i.e. an opinion, in the given discourse, which by providing a
constellation of statements he attempts to justify or refute for real or imagined interlocutors (van
Eemeren et al, 1986, p.202). At times, discourse is explicitly argumentative, with speakers
33
clearly naming not only their standpoints but also their arguments in regard to those standpoints,
so the function of a text as an argumentative one is vivid. However, as van Eemeren et al state
(2002, p. 39) ‘such explicit announcements (…) are the exception rather than the rule. In
everyday communication, the intended function of utterances is not normally indicated
explicitly.’ Yet, even when there is no explicit announcement of a standpoint, or of
argumentation, it is usually the case that the speaker or writer suggests these discourse elements
by using verbal indicators. Therefore, when the text raises doubt verbal indicators serve as good
reference points for recognizing the argumentative dimension of the text9. Similarly, the context
can be used as a heuristic source of information, pertinent to this process. This context may refer
to the direct contextual whole of the text, the situation in which the discourse is advanced, or the
cultural context in which the discourse is taking place. Furthermore, background knowledge on
the topic of the discourse under investigation, may serve as an important source (van Eemeren et
al, 2010, p.42).
4.2.2 Step one: identifying the context and audience of the discourse
In pragma-dialectics, context and audience of argumentative discourse serve a pertinent value to
the analysis. Therefore, the first step in our proposed method entails the specification of the
context in which the discourse is taking place along with the audience to whom the discourse is
addressed. The context can greatly determine both possibilities and constraints that the speaker
or writer is presented with or bound by in the conduct of discourse. For example, the context of a
parliamentary debate and the context of an interview can present relatively differentiated
constraints and possibilities to discursively tackle an issue. The constraints, for example, may
pertain to aspects ranging from time to institutionally set requirements for communicative
activities. Most importantly, however, the context allows to better understand the choices and
moves that the speaker or writer makes in a given discourse. Denying the differences between
contexts poses the danger of arriving at conclusions that are ‘less realistic than desirable’ (Plug,
2010).
9 Verbal indicators for standpoints include: in my opinion, I think that, I conclude by saying that and I hope I have shown that. Verbal indicators for arguments include: therefore, thus, so, consequently, of course, because, since, given that, on one hand … on the other hand, this is evidence of, on the grounds of, firstly…secondly, because of, ought to, should, all in all, in short, all in all. It is important to note that indicators of argumentation also serve as indicator of standpoints. For more on recognizing the argumentative dimension of the text see van Eemeren et al., 2010, pp. 39-49.
34
The specific audience that the speaker or writer is addressing is an equally important
consideration. In specifying the audience of the speaker or writer, it can be broken down into two
further categories – the primary audience that the speaker or writer intends to reach, and the
secondary audience, that might constitute an existing, yet a less important entity. Moreover, it is
useful to assess the extent to which the demographic of the audience is heterogeneous or
homogenous and in which aspects. Specification of the audience will make the frame extraction
process more insightful, in addition it will also enlighten the motivation behind the choices made
in the frame’s construction techniques.
All in all, it is believed that in regard to framing analysis, the consideration of context and
audience will serve as a step preventing the reduction of discourse to be seen as solely textual
data, distancing the discourse from reality and in such way impeding realistic results or, at worst,
making it susceptible to mistaken interpretations. By considering the context and the audience,
the rationale of and for the frame will be easier to understand, so too the techniques used to
construct them will provide a vivid comprehension of their at times subtle function.
4.2.3 Step two: reconstructing the text in terms of a critical discussion
Recognition of a text as argumentative makes it possible to envision the discourse produced on
the issue as a critical discussion, more precisely, as an attempt to have a reasonable exchange of
views with potential or real critics in order to convince them of the acceptability of the taken
standpoint in regard to that issue. Therefore, what follows in our proposed method of framing
analysis is the reconstruction of the text according to the model of a critical discussion, by re-
ordering text elements into their adequate stages dependent on the purpose that they serve in the
discussion. Without the reconstruction of a text according to the critical discussion model,
pragma-dialectical analysis will not be possible due to further analytical processes that depend
on this procedure. The identification and placement of discourse elements into the adequate
stages can be aided by a reference to the stage descriptions provided in more detail in Chapter 3,
pp.21-22.
The reconstruction of discourse in terms of the model of a critical discussion benefits
framing analysis in two inter-related ways. First, it will re-order the text in a logical sequence,
which is especially useful when the discourse is structurally loose, and it is unclear what function
35
particular utterances or even speech blocks serve10. Second, this re-ordering of the text will
serve a heuristic function in frame extraction, as it will allow observing how the frame on an
issue is being produced. The critical discussion stage order will portray frame building in a
logical sequence of production, albeit such logical sequence is not always clear in the raw
discourse sample. This logical sequence entails that text elements, belonging to the confrontation
and opening stages, will be used to introduce the standpoint and consequently the frame that will
be projected, which will be marked by discourse pertaining to the difference of opinion. The goal
of the confrontational stage, according to the pragma-dialectical theory, is to introduce the
difference of opinion, whereas the goal of the opening stage is to establish a point of departure
for the discussion. Argumentation stage will then be used to justify the standpoint and the frame
that is projected through the use of arguments. The goal of argumentation stage is to develop the
lines of attack and defense. Last, the concluding stage will be used to reiterate the standpoint and
the frame that is projected through final remarks. The goal of the concluding stage, according to
pragma-dialecticians, is a statement of results (van Eemeren, 2010, p.97).
4.2.4 Step three: building an analytical overview of the text
As overviewed in Chapter 3, the analytical overview is a subsequent step in the pragma-
dialectical analysis, thus our method too follows this order. The purpose of the analytical
overview is to specify four significant components of the discourse - the issue, the role that the
speaker or writer takes on in regard to the issue, the survey of arguments advanced towards the
issue and the conclusion that is reached. The issue, the role of the speaker or writer and the
conclusion that is reached will provide the investigator with essential information on the
discourse, as these elements will guide the investigator in understanding its core basis, namely,
what is going on.
Moreover, of great importance for the analysis of frames and framing techniques will be
the survey of arguments that the analytical overview provides, since this survey portrays, the
reasoning through which the standpoint of the speaker or writer is justified along with a
reconstruction of its structural and schematic relationships. When it comes to frame extraction,
10 Alternatively, this re-ordering is not necessary when it is felt that it impedes the logical coherence of a text for the analyst. In such cases, the text elements can be simply broken down in paragraphs (where necessary sentences) and classified to the stages they belong to without physically transforming it. This type of reconstruction will be used in the case study example in Chapter 5.
36
these structural and schematic relationships might not hold a critical function per se, but rather
provide the analyst with a coherent breakdown of the arguments for the purpose of clarifying the
justification of a projected frame on an issue and also, at the same time, acting as a validation
reference in frame extraction. Most importantly, however, the structural and schematic
relationship will provide the analyst with insights that will be later applied in the analysis of
framing techniques, the benefits of which will be outlined in section 4.2.6 of this chapter.
Identification of the argumentation structure entails determining whether it is single or
complex. Single argumentation structure consists of a defense of a standpoint supported by only
one argument, which is formed by two premises, one of which is usually left unexpressed. As
van Eemeren et al. state (2002, p.64) ‘a defense consisting of only one single argument is very
common. The argument is often embedded in a larger discourse that is not primarily
argumentative.’ Complex argumentation structure consists of a defense supported by several
arguments, the relationship of which can be further classified into 3 categories – multiple,
coordinative and subordinate. Just as the identification of standpoints and arguments, the
identification of complex argumentation structure can be identified through the observation of
verbal indicators within the discourse11.
Identification of the argument schemes entails determining the justificatory principle
employed by the speaker or writer in defense of their standpoint. As overviewed in chapter 3
p.26, pragma-dialecticians identify three broad categories of argumentation schemes. Through
the use of a symptomatic argumentation scheme the speaker or writer will intend to indicate a
sign, symptom, mark or trait in the argument that will act as a justificatory principle for the
standpoint. Through the use of comparison argumentation scheme the speaker or writer will
intend to offer a similarity or resemblance in the argument to another entity, which will bear
11 Indicators that signal the use of multiple argumentation are: needless to say, in fact, apart from, not to mention, another reason for this is, one argument for this is, in the first place, secondly, by the way, incidentally, quite apart from, and aside from. Indicators that signal the use of coordinative argumentation are: as well as the fact that, in addition (to the fact that), on top of that, and don’t forget that, especially because, even, plus, not only … but also, and more importantly. Indicators that signal the use of subordinate argumentation are: because, for that reason, therefore, after all, that is why, since, in view of which are presented before the argument itself. What is more, the following indicators occur exclusively in subordinate argumentation for because, because because, because in view of. Additionally, pragma-dialecticians recognize a number of expression that indicate the use of either coordinative or subordinate argumentation, such as I conclude that, this follows from, in conclusion, it follows from this that, taking everything into consideration, all things considered I believe I am justified in saying that, ergo. When the analyst is not able to differentiate between multiple and coordinative argumentation, as they can both be signaled by the use of ambiguous indicators, the maximally argumentative analysis principle should be followed, reconstructing the argumentation structure as multiple. For more information see van Eemeren et al., 2002.
37
implications for the justification of the standpoint. Through the use of causal argumentation the
speaker or writer will attempt to establish a cause-effect connection between the argument and
the standpoint (van Eemeren et al, 2002). The identification of argumentation schemes employed
in the discourse will be made possible by the reconstruction of their unexpressed premises12.
4.2.5 Step four: extracting a frame from the text
By this point in the analysis the investigator would already have a basis from which the frame
extraction process could be started. From step three of the analysis method, the investigator
would already know the central issue within the discourse, the stance that the speaker has taken,
the arguments used to justify this stance and the conclusion that is projected. As noted before,
even though these elements could already give a notion of the frame that the speaker or writer is
building, the frame extraction process must consist of a more profound analysis for two reasons.
First, not all may be said through argumentation. Argumentation may not, for example, be
extensive with significant frame information present in confrontational, opening and concluding
stages of the discourse. Second, following Entman’s conceptualization of framing, a frame in
itself may be composed of four different elements, i.e. problem definition, diagnosis of the
problem cause, moral judgment, and remedy suggestion, all of which, once again, may not be
conveyed solely through the argumentative elements of the text alone. Therefore, step four of our
proposed method includes an analysis of the full text, i.e. all discussion stages, under
investigation through which the manifestations of the mentioned frame elements are sought for.
The frame element search essentially consists of data selection, which signifies the
manifestation of each of the four frame elements across all stages of the critical discussion into
which the text has been reconstructed in step two. For the purpose of organization, clarity and
insight this step of the method includes the practical use of a table into which the selected data is
placed, according to the stage it is found in and according to the frame element it constitutes.
This table is presented below:
12 This step will require basic knowledge of logic. The identification of argumentation schemes can also be aided by the reasoning patterns they embody. Symptomatic argumentation will follow a reasoning pattern: Y is true of X, because: Z is true of X, and: Z is symptomatic of Y. Comparison argumentation will follow a reasoning pattern: Y is true of X, because: Y is true of Z, and: Z is comparable to X. Causal argumentation will follow a reasoning pattern: Y is true of X, because: Z is true of X, and: Z leads to Y. For more information see van Eemeren et al., 2002.
38
Table 9
Frame extraction table
Problem definition Diagnosis of the
problem
Moral judgment Remedy suggestion
Confrontation stage
Opening stage
Argumentation stage
Concluding stage
Since at this point in the method the discourse is already restructured according to the proper
discussion stage elements, each stage can be scanned for data on either one element of the frame
or all four elements. Scanning each stage for data on one element of the frame would entail a
vertical data selection process, whereas scanning each stage for data on all frame elements would
entail a horizontal data selection process. In each stage frame element manifestation data can be
organized in bullet points or numbers.
If the analyst decides to scan each stage for data on one frame element, for example - the
problem definition, every manifestation of problem definition in the text would be placed in the
table according to the stage it is found in. In this way, by the end of data collection on the
problem definition element of the frame, the analyst would have clear indications in which stage
and how often the frame element figured in the text. By the end of data collection on all four
elements of the frame, the analyst would have a representation of all their manifestations and
frequencies.
At this point, the table would serve the analyst as a heuristic device for inferring and
constituting the existence of a frame, projected in the discourse. Not only would it provide clear
indications of frame element existence, but it would also allow to vertically compare each frame
element across each of the critical discussion stages. This vertical comparison could in turn be
used to monitor, whether the frame elements is persistent within the discourse to constitute a
recurring regularity, increasing confidence in the extracted frame by safeguarding the analyst
from possibly incorrect amplifications of discourse elements that may essentially be one-off
occurrences.
39
Finally, by having collected, overviewed and verified the persistence of data on the
manifestation of frame elements, conclusions could be drawn on the frame that the speaker or
writer is invoking in the discourse. At this crucial point, the table that was used as a heuristic
device to infer and constitute the frame, could now simultaneously be used as a justificatory
device for the results obtained in the analysis. As Koning (2007) notes, most framing analyses
‘hardly ever reveal their measurement models. Even in otherwise well documented studies, it is
often difficult to tell, which mechanisms were used to arrive at particular frames and, how they
have been measured empirically.’ In this sense, our proposed frame extraction table would make
the process explicit and clear.
4.2.6 Step five: applying the strategic maneuvering concept to identify the framing techniques used in frame construction
After having drawn conclusions on the frame that the speaker or writer has projected in the
discourse, the concept of strategic maneuvering could be used to identify how this frame, or each
frame element separately was constructed, i.e. what techniques were used. According to Hertog
& Mcleod (2001), frames are constructed by multiple procedures, thus the analysis of framing
techniques must be a dynamic process, requiring the observation of manifold discourse conduct
aspects. Since the concept of strategic maneuvering pertains to the observation of multiple
discourse moves and choices that are made in a critical discussion to convince audiences, it can
adequately and insightfully account for what techniques are used to build a frame on an issue.
Therefore, the last step of our proposed method, step five, entails the application of the strategic
maneuvering concept to identify the framing techniques used in the construction of the extracted
frame. Whilst introducing a few additional analytical questions, this endeavor will also entail the
use of material obtained in all the previous steps of the analysis.
As overviewed in Chapter 3, p. 27, strategic maneuvering in a critical discussion
manifests itself in three observable aspects – topical selection, audience adaptation and
presentational devices, which are claimed to work simultaneously to attain the goal of the critical
discussion – to remove doubt and by doing so convince an addressee. However, since strategic
maneuvering is a context dependent concept, its application in step five should proceed with
identifying this context and the audience that the speaker or writer is intending to reach.
Information about the context and the audience will result in each move observed through the
40
analysis of strategic maneuvering to hold a more clear meaning and function. Luckily, for this
aspect of step five, all the information would already have been gathered in step one of the
method.
Subsequently, having reflected back on the context and the audience, the analysis of
strategic maneuvering should move toward its observation at each of the discussion stages. This
observation would be aided by several analytical questions the researcher must ask and assess
(see table 11 for the strategic maneuvering analytical questions). In a broad sense, the analyst
would need to determine what argumentative moves and their presentational choices are selected
for each stage of the discussion and how they resonate with the likely preferences of the
audience? Table 10
Strategic maneuvering analytical questions for identifying framing techniques
Confrontation stage Opening stage Argumentation stage Conclusion stage
Topical selection What are the choices of issues
or critiques?
What procedural and/or
material starting points are
chosen for the discussion?
What types of arguments are
used to defend or criticize the
issue?
What conclusion is
established in regard
to the discussion?
Answers:
Presentational
devices
What is the presentational
design of issues or critiques?
What is the presentational
design of the procedural and
material starting points?
What is the presentational
design of arguments?
What is the
presentational design
of the conclusion?
Answers:
Audience
adaptation
How does the choice of issues
or critiques and their
presentational design
resonates or is adjusted to
audience preferences?
How does the choice of
material and/or procedural
starting points and their
presentational design
resonates or is adjusted with
audience preferences?
How does the choice of
arguments and their
presentational design
resonates or is adjusted with
audience preferences?
How does the choice
of a conclusion and its
presentational design
resonates or is
adjusted to audience
preferences?
Answers:
41
More specifically, this part of the strategic maneuvering analysis would ensue by referring back
to material, obtained in step two of our method, i.e. reconstruction of the discourse in terms of
the critical discussion. By having the investigated discourse reconstructed in terms of the critical
discussion, the analysis would follow by applying and answering the relevant analytical
questions presented in table 11 in connection to the stage of the discourse they concern. Note that
in order to answer the analytical questions pertaining to strategic maneuvering in the
argumentation stage, the analyst would also need to refer back to material obtained in step three
of our method, i.e. the analytical overview. Here, it is precisely component three of the analytical
overview - the survey of arguments advanced towards the issue and their structural and
schematic relationships – that would be used as a source. For example, it could be the case that
the analyst has identified the speaker or writer to have used an analogy (pertaining to schematic
relationship) in defense of a standpoint. Depending on the content of the analogy, this discourse
move could come to mean that the speaker or writer is attempting to evoke emotions provoked
by the similarities of the compared objects in the given audience, e.g. we oppose liberalizing
abortion, because liberalizing abortion is the same as giving the approval for women to be
murderers.
By having answered all analytical questions concerning the strategic maneuvering
analysis the researcher would have a precise specification of what discursive moves were made
in each stage of the discussion, i.e. the full text under investigation. These findings would
provide a scrupulous and thorough reflection of the ways in which the discourse was produced
and the message was conveyed. At this point the researcher would need to refer to step four of
the method, i.e. the extracted frame. Here, it must be revisited and noted that even though frames
are referred to in a singular manner, i.e. the frame, they are nevertheless composed of different
elements, which may or may not all be present in the investigated discourse. If it is the case that
the extracted frame is not complex, for example composed of only one element, the results of
strategic maneuvering analysis could be instantly used to determine and constitute the techniques
used to construct that frame. At the same time, if it so happens that the frame is complex, yet the
researcher is not interested in an acutely meticulous identification of techniques used to construct
each of its element, insights gathered from the strategic maneuvering analysis could be used to
determine and constitute the framing techniques in a holistic and general manner.
42
It is also likely that the researcher would indeed be interested in an acutely meticulous
identification of techniques used to construct a complex frame, consisting of multiple elements.
In this situation the researcher would need to refer to the frame extraction table generated in step
four (see table 9, p. 39, this chapter), and use it as a concurring tool for generating the results.
This table would show in which stage the frame element occurred. By knowing the stage of each
frame element’s occurrence, the strategic maneuvering analysis table and its findings (see table
10, p. 40, this chapter) could be used as a guide to build a notion of the techniques used to
construct the frame element at that particular stage. More specifically, if it would be observed in
the frame extraction table, that the problem definition occurred in the opening, argumentation
and concluding stages, the analyst would use the strategic maneuvering analysis table results to
determine and constitute what moves and choices, i.e. techniques, were used in those stages to
construct the problem definition.
Finally, although the identified strategic maneuvering moves can provide significant
micro insight to understand and summarize the speaker or writer’s tactics in building the frame,
this data can be alternatively used as a heuristic indicator for determining what ‘standardized’
framing techniques are used in the discourse (see Chapter 2).
All in all, strategic maneuvering analysis will allow a thorough observation and
explanation of the discourse with specific textual indications of the techniques that the speaker or
writer was undertaking in the construction of a frame. Moreover, due to knowing the context
and audience of the speaker, strategic maneuvering analysis will allow understanding the broader
function of discursive moves, perceiving them not only as an instance of one or another framing
technique, but comprehending why such a technique was used in the first place.
43
Chapter 5: applying the method in a case study for frame extraction and the identification of framing techniques This chapter will be used to illustrate how the method, outlined in Chapter 4, can be applied in
practice to an analysis of a text, for the purpose of extracting its frame and identifying the
techniques used for the frame’s construction. This endeavor will entail a five step process with a
preliminary step - step zero - for recognizing the argumentative dimension of the text, in this way
making it viable for our proposed method. Following the preliminary step, the analysis will
proceed with step one, where the context and the audience of the discourse will be identified.
Step two will consist of reconstructing the text in terms of a critical discussion. Step three will
involve building an analytical overview of the text. In step four, we will extract the frame
projected in the discourse. Finally, in step five we will apply the strategic maneuvering concept
to identify the techniques used in the frame’s construction.
5.1 Case study background
The pragma-dialectical methods of analysis will be applied to a speech given in the
Lithuanian Parliament on December 20, 2012 (see Appendix). This speech was made in the
context of a parliamentary hearing session, the purpose of which was to decide, whether political
immunity should be retracted from three Lithuanian Parliament Labor Party members who are
accused of fraudulent accounting, dubbed the “black accounting” case.
The “black accounting” scandal started in 2006, when the Lithuanian National Security
Department received an anonymous tip claiming that one of the parties in Lithuania is involved
in political espionage. Considering its close ties with Russia, the Labor Party became a prime
suspect. Upon seizing the Labor Party headquarters, computers and administrational documents,
National Security Department officials accidentally came upon evidence pointing to possible
fraud in the financial accounting of the Party. The evidence was handed over to the Vilnius
District Court, yet the case is still in trial seven years later. The „black accounting“ case became
a profound public issue in 2012, when during the Lithuanian Parliamentary elections, the Labor
Party won a significant amount of seats in the Parliament, getting the possibility to form the
44
coalition government. The election outcome evoked political chaos and sparked nationwide
debate. The crux of the matter was simple – upon winning parliamentary mandates, Labor Party
representatives gained political immunity, whilst at that time 2014 was the year that the fraud
case would reach its Statute of Limitation. It became a realistic possibility that the case might
simply not receive a judicial resolution. The most conspicuous aspect of the Parliamentary
elections was that despite years of continuous coverage of the trial, evidence and expert opinions,
the scandal not only did not affect the Party ratings; on the contrary, it was at the height of its
reign. It is understandable that the political choices of citizens are a complex sociological entity,
which is affected by various factors; however the situation seemed somewhat paradox - if it can
be assumed that citizens want a trustworthy government, the scandal proved to be ineffective to
impact public opinion.
Each accused member of the Labor Party delivered a speech in the Lithuanian Parliament
on December 20th, 2012, not only attempting to convince the fellow politicians of their
innocence, whose vote was to determine the immunity status of the Labor Party members, but
also the Nation, as the hearing was broadcasted live on national television. The speeches
summarized and reinforced their side of the discourse that pervaded the scandal throughout the
years.
5.2 The analysis
Step zero: recognizing the argumentative dimension of the text
The text that constitutes the object of the analysis is intelligibly argumentative. The speech
preceded a parliamentary voting, the purpose of which was to decide whether the speaker should
be retracted of her political immunity as stated in the resolution of the hearing ‘Regarding the
agreement to allow Seimas member Vitalija Vonzutaite to be held to criminal accountability or
restrict her freedom in other ways.’ The speaker was invited onto the platform to speak, for the
maximal duration of 30 minutes. The purpose of the speech was to present her opinion on the
issue, followed by two opinions for and two opinions against the resolution from fellow
parliamentarians in order to attempt to convince the voting body of the decision that should be
made. The speeches formed part of the hearing component of the formally structured resolution
45
process (proposal – hearing - voting). What is more, within the pragma-dialectical theory
parliamentary debates are considered as acknowledged argumentative activities13.
Step one: identifying the context and audience of the discourse
As mentioned above, the speech was delivered in the Lithuanian Parliament. In terms of
constraints that the context may pose for the speaker, the Lithuanian Parliament Statute has no
significant rules that majorly restrain how parliamentary sessions must be conducted, except for
time limitations and the mandatory use of the Lithuanian language. Therefore, when it comes to
the institutional constrains that could govern communicative speech activities in the Lithuanian
Parliament, all conduct of oral communication is officially constrained only by the all-purpose
Code of Behavior for the Nation’s politicians, implemented by the former President Valdas
Adamkus in 2006. This code specifies 9 broad and rather generic behavioral principles that
politicians in Lithuania must abide by in the public sector. 14 Parliamentary debates must too
correspond with these norms. Truth be told, if compared to communication within the legal
domain, for example, communicative speech activities of the political domain are in general less
formally regimented (van Eemeren, 2010, p.130). This is especially true for the Lithuanian
political domain. As a consequence amongst many others, politicians have more freedom for
creativity when engaging in spoken discourse15, consequently having a rather unprecedented
ability to dictate one’s own terms for what can be said and how it can be said.
13 For more on the pragma-dialectical classification of communicative activities and their argumentative discourse nature see van Eemeren, 2010, Chapter 5. 14 Code of Behavior for the Nation’s politicians 1) Respect for the individual and the nation 2) Fairness 3) Honesty 4) Transparency and openness 5) Decency 6) Exemplarity 7) Selflessness 8) Objectivity 9) Responsibility 15 It is important to distinguish between spoken and written communication, because written communication, for example, has very strict conventions, resulting in an extremely technical use of speech.
46
The primary audience for the speaker is the fellow parliamentarians, whom the speech is
addressed to and, most importantly, whose vote is of critical value following its delivery, as this
vote will determine whether the Labor Party members will be strapped of their political
immunity. The primary audience is composed of 137 individuals, with 23,6% being women. Out
of 137 parliamentarians present in the voting, 105 are members of other political parties than the
Labor Party. From the 105 non Labor Party parliamentarians, 19% are women. The secondary
audience for the speaker is broad, including at the time present journalists, spectators, television
viewers and radio listeners16.
Step two: reconstructing the text in terms of a critical discussion
To begin the real analysis of the speech we must, first of all, reconstruct it in terms of the model
of a critical discussion in order to make clear and explicit the components that will be essential
for the subsequent procedures – building the analytical overview, the extraction of frames and
the identification of framing techniques through the concept of strategic maneuvering. For this
purpose parts of the original speech are marked according to the stage they belong to without
restructuring the original text sequence17:
CONFRONTATION STAGE Yes, I'm nervous talking about this topic, because my future depends on it, that's why the speech will be short. OPENING STAGE: I wrote some notes, a few words, so I don't miss anything that I want to tell you. OPENING STAGE: All of you had the opportunity to get acquainted with the political case criteria by the famous USA lawyer S.Horton. OPENING STAGE I am convinced that my case is political for the following reasons. ARGUMENTATION STAGE First. The object of the case is a political party and its leaders. Second. The case was initiated after the Party won the 2004 elections. Third. Financial crime accusations are common for
16 Parliamentary hearings are broadcasted live on television and radio. 17 As mentioned in Chapter 4, p. 34 of this thesis, the analyst may wish to carry out the reconstruction by either physically reordering and grouping the text parts into the particular stage they represent, or he may simply mark the text with a title of the stage, which he believes the text part to represent, as is done in our analysis.
47
political cases. Fourth. Even though the case was termed as financial, its investigation was started and conducted by the National Security Department. Fifth. Part of the information is collected in an unsanctioned manner. Sixth. I, as a woman, was put under extreme pressure, aiming to extract a testimony that served their purpose. Seventh. The case was used aiming to compromise Labor Party candidates, when before the second election round the accusations were quickly re-qualified. Eight During the Court process, the rights of defendants was breached and no attention was paid to their protests. Ninth. The case investigation is not objective.
CONFRONTATION STAGE Honorable Seimas members, the Attorney assigned me with an essential role in this case. He provided an impressive scheme to the Seimas Comittee where this was portrayed. Amounts in millions, that I apparently organized, are written in the accusation. Believe me, I have never seen such amounts. I can’t imagine how they could look like. I am accused of fraudulent accounting, now other crimes as well. But, Honorable Seimas members, I was only 24 at the time. I did not have any judicial or financial knowledge; I won't even talk out practice. The point is that, I was supposed to break down during the inhumane accusation and pressure and sign a raped confession along with testifying against the Chairman and Party activity.
That is why I, a young woman, was chosen, who, according to the calculations of attorney's, should not have survived the threats and pressure. I especially want to emphasize the extraordinary attempts by attorneys to scare me and break me down by showing horror like ASAROS: photos, that showed dead bodies with heads dug up from graves, with tied arms and legs, after brutal torture. It was implied that a future like this is waiting for me. I want to ask you from this stand, for what could I be facing this? Is that normal; are those the methods of a financial case investigation?
Special attention was given to the investigation of the case, extraordinary official forces were gathered. The case and judicial actions are publicized intentionally. I am once again put under pressure in the Court process. Accusations surface of stalling the case. The accusations appear due to pregnancy and flu. But am I stalling the case, when I am trying with all my strength to save my baby's life?
Thank God I gave birth to a healthy son in 2011. I was worried about this the most after all the experience, pressure and stress. My health got worse after the childbirth. I still experience these consequences. The activities of all the medical institutions that I approached and received treatment were under heavy investigation. My doctor has been sued for apparently faking my sick notes. That's why a lot of doctors give me hints - we can have a lot of problems because of you, maybe you should go somewhere else? All of this is happening in a modern democratic country.
ARGUMENTATION STAGE: Another apparent political slap in the face by the accusers - re-qualifying the accusations to a heavy criminal offense in the eve of the second election round, even though no new factual circumstances have appeared. The whole case is fabricated by using testimony of 2 women, who have had problems with the law enforcement before this case. One of them - for document fraud, another - for unlawful currency operations. Not to mention, one of them later confessed to conducting double accounting for 2 companies prior to the Labor Party.
It is apparent that the two ladies (sarcastic) are weak. Because they were weak, the law enforcement manipulated them from the very beginning. Also, neither rone of them worked in the Labor Party during that time, but they are the main witnesses in this case, saved from prosecution for their activities. Say, how can this be explained?
CONFRONTATION STAGE:
I am accused of instructing to conduct fraudulent accounting in 2004, even though I did not work int eh labor Party headquarters at the time, that from 2004. January 1, I did not fill in labor Party expenses and income in the declarations, even though I started working in the
48
Labor Party headquarters and received a permission to sign documents only in 2005. Witness Virginija Jagminaite confessed in Court, that she prepared, filled in, signed and supplied relevant institutions monthly, quarterly and yearly documents, signing them for me. The interesting thing is that, all these facts surfaced in Court only this year on Feb.27 in the witness hearing process, where V.Jagminaite confessed to preparing and forging signatures. Also, to the question, whether such financial operations were confirmed with Party management, the witness declared, I quote: nothing was coordinated. Did anyone instruct to forge the accounting? Answer: really, there were no orders.
CONSLUSION STAGE:
So why am I being incriminated with the offenses and why does this only surface in Court, while the attorneys don't want to hear about this prior to the Court, even though it is obvious? Honorable Seimas members, say, is this not a political case, when national institutions are under pressure to fabricate it? This political case is aimed against the Labor Party and its leader, and I am just a small screw. But the attorneys could not file a lawsuit against a juridicial individual, they needed physical individuals. That's how I appeared in this case. Honorable Seimas members, I believe that because of your will this case will not turn into a political crusifiction of a young mother bringing up a son. To you it is just a push of a button or a politically considered move. To me and my baby this is the whole life. Thank you for your attention.
The reconstruction of this speech in terms of the model of the critical discussion is made
possible and can be justified by referring to the critical discussion stage elements provided in the
description of the model. For example, it is known that in the opening stage the speaker would
make it clear that he or she is prepared to resolve the difference of opinion, following certain
rules for argumentative discussion. The speaker of writer would briefly mention these rules and
any starting points. In lines 3 to 6 of our analyzed speech the speaker is explicitly indicating that
she is prepared to resolve the difference of opinion by providing arguments to defend her
standpoint, stating that ‘I am convinced that my case is political for the following reasons’ before
proceeding to a number of arguments to defend her position. The speaker also mentions an
article by a human rights lawyer Scott Horton as starting point material. For this reason, lines 3
to 6 are reconstructed as the opening stage. Furthermore, it is known that in the concluding stage,
for example, the speaker would assess to what extent the difference of opinion has been resolved
by their argumentation. In 61 to 69 of our analyzed speech the speaker intelligibly evaluates the
defense of her standpoint, e.g. ‘So why am I being incriminated with the offenses and why does
this only surface in Court, while the attorneys don't want to hear about this prior to the Court,
even though it is obvious”, before proceeding to address the parliament members for a final plea.
For this reason, lines 61 to 69 are reconstructed as belonging to the conclusion stage.
49
Step three: building an analytical overview of the text Following the reconstruction of the speech in terms of the model of a critical discussion, we may
proceed to building an analytical overview, which will provide specification on four elements of
the discourse - the points at issue, the different position that the parties concerned adopt with
respect to these points, the survey of arguments that are advanced in the discussion, including
their structural and schematic relationship, and the conclusion that is reached:
1)The points at issue: in the object of analysis the point at issue is the resolution regarding which voting is
taking place, i.e. ‘Regarding the agreement to allow Seimas member Vitalija Vonzutaite to be held to
criminal accountability or restrict her freedom in other ways.’
2)The different positions that the parties concerned adopt with respect to these points: the speaker adopts the
role of a protagonist of a standpoint that can be reconstructed as ‘I, Vitalija Vonzutaite, should not be held to
criminal accountability or have my freedom restricted in other ways.’ The standpoint is clear in the status quo
of the situation and reconstructed, in this case, by referring to the context of the discussion.
3)The survey of arguments that are explicitly or implicitly advanced in the discussion:
1. STANDPOINT: I, Vitalija Vonzuntaite, should not be held to criminal accountability or have my freedom restricted in other ways. Because: 1.1 My case is political 1.1.1 First. The object of the case is a political party and its leaders. 1.1.2 Second. The case was initiated after the Party won the 2004 elections. 1.1.3Third. Financial crime accusations are common for political cases. 1.1.4 Fourth. Even though the case was termed as financial, its investigation was started and conducted by the National Security Department. 1.1.5 Fifth. Part of the information is collected in an unsanctioned manner. 1.1.6 Sixth. I, as a woman, was put under extreme pressure, aiming to extract a testimony that served their purpose. 1.1.7 Seventh. The case was used aiming to compromise Labor Party candidates, when before the second election round the accusations were quickly re-qualified. 1.1.8 Eight. During the Court process, the rights of defendants was breached and no attention was paid to their protests. 1.1.9 Ninth. The case investigation is not objective. 1.1.10 Another apparent political slap in the face by the accusers - re-qualifying the accusations to a heavy criminal offense in the eve of the second election round, even though no new factual circumstances have appeared.
50
1.1.11a The whole case is fabricated by using testimonies of 2 women, who have had problems with the law enforcement before this case. 1.1.11.1.1 One of them for document fraud, another - for unlawful currency operations. 1.1.11.1.2 Not to mention, one of them later confessed to conducting double accounting for 2 companies prior to the Labor Party. 1.1.11b It is apparent that the two ladies (sarcastic) are weak. 1.1.11b.1aBecause they were weak, the law enforcement manipulated them from the very beginning. 1.1.11.b.1b Also, neither one of them worked in the Labor Party during that time, but they are the main witnesses in this case, saved from prosecution for their activities.
3.1) Argument structure: The structure of argumentation constitutes a complex form, with the standpoint
being supported by primary argument 1.1, which is subsequently supported mostly through the use of
multiple argumentation (arguments 1.1.1 to 1.1.10), along with a coordinative instance of the support
(arguments 1.11.1a, 1.11.1b)18 19.
3.2)Argument schemes: the standpoint is defended through the use of symptomatic argumentation both in the
primary justification (argument 1.1) and the subsequent justifications, with the complex of arguments
indicating a sign for why the standpoint should be accepted.
4) The conclusion that is reached: the reached conclusion can be reconstructed as – ‘fellow parliamentarians
should not vote to retract my political immunity’. The conclusion, just as the standpoint, is inherent in the
status quo of the situation and reconstructed by referring to the context of the discussion.
Step four: extracting a frame from the text.
So far in the analysis we know the issue, the stance of the speaker in regard to the issue, the
standpoint and the arguments that the speaker has advanced in its regard. As mentioned in
Chapter 4, these elements provide us with the foundation for understanding the essence of the
discourse. What is more, these elements can already direct us in understanding the position that
the speaker is taking and the direction towards which she is turning her audience, i.e. ‘I should
not be prosecuted’, because ‘my case is political.’ Following the lead given by this justification
of the standpoint, we then hypothesize that the political case theme will dominate the whole of
the discourse to consequently constitute a frame on the definition of the problem. At this point,
we shall use Entman’s conceptualization of frame elements to scan the discourse for their
manifestation. The table suggested in Chapter 4 p. 38 is filled with data that is believed to
18 The structure could be detailed further, however, this is does not bear significant implications neither for frame extraction nor for the identification of framing techniques. 19 See van Eemeren et al, (2002) on representing the argumentation structure in analysis.
51
represent each of the frame elements along the course of the discussion. Furthermore, where
necessary, excerpt parts are italicized to emphasize the grounds for their selection. The findings
are presented in table 11 on the next page.
Findings: Problem definition – political case: from the outset it was assumed that the political case theme will dominate the discourse, due to its referral in the justification of the speaker’s standpoint. The generated data allows confirming this prediction. The political case theme vertically reoccurs throughout the length of the discussion, i.e. in all of the discussion stages. The confrontation stage, although not mentioning the phrase ‘political case’ explicitly, is used to describe the shady and irrational situation that the speaker is in, painting the issue in a mistrustful light. The opening stage provides the answer, to the suspicion raised in the confrontation stage. The issue is explicitly defined as a political case. The argumentation stage is used to provide a multitude of evidence to confirm this notion. The conclusion stage reiterates the projected frame, by once again confirming the political tone of the accusations, e.g. ‘this is a political case, aimed at the Labor Party and its members and I am just a small screw.’ Diagnosis of the problem – the attorneys: the culprit of the situation is also continuously mentioned throughout the length of the discussion, except for the opening stage. In this case study, the opening stage of the critical discussion is not extensive, comprised of only a few sentences, which provide no further information for frame extraction apart from problem definition. Nevertheless, in the confrontation stage the speaker refers to the attorney and the Court as the perpetrators of the political persecution. In the argumentation stage, amongst the reasons put forward to justify the political case notion, the speaker keeps drawing attention to the attorneys, stating – as an argument – ‘the law enforcement manipulated them20.’ In the concluding stage, the speaker once again identifies the attorneys as the source of the problem. Moral evaluation - immoral: the core of the moral tone, given to the situation, is centered on the distinctive opposition of participants - a young mother raising a son versus vicious vindictive attorneys. The moral evaluation of the issue can be summarized as specifically lacking it, i.e. morality. The self is numerously referred to as a young woman, a young mother raising a child, who is not only purposefully accused of something she claims to not have done, but is also continuously pressured and tormented through the merciless process. Remedy suggestion – allow sustaining political immunity: the standpoint and status quo of the situation bears advantage for the identification of the remedy suggestion component of the frame. Nonetheless, the speaker confirms the remedy suggestion in the concluding stage of the critical discussion by pleading fellow parliamentarians not to vote for her immunity retraction.
20 E.g. the witnesses
Fram
e el
emen
tD
iscu
ssio
n st
age
Con
fron
tatio
n
Con
clud
ing
Prob
lem
de
finiti
on• ‘
I'm n
ervo
us ta
lkin
g ab
out t
his t
opic
, bec
ause
my
futu
re d
epen
ds o
n it’
.• ‘
<…>
the A
ttorn
ey a
ssig
ned
me
with
an
esse
ntia
l rol
e in
this
cas
e. H
e pr
ovid
ed a
n im
pres
sive
sche
me
to th
e Se
imas
Com
mitt
ee w
here
this
was
por
traye
d. A
mou
nts i
n m
illio
ns, t
hat I
app
aren
tly o
rgan
ized
, ar
e w
ritte
n in
the
accu
satio
n. B
elie
ve m
e, I
have
nev
er se
en su
ch a
mou
nts.
I can
’t im
agin
e ho
w th
ey
coul
d lo
ok li
ke. I
am
acc
used
of f
raud
ulen
t acc
ount
ing,
now
oth
er c
rimes
as w
ell’.
• ‘B
ut <
…>I
was
onl
y 24
at t
he ti
me.
I di
d no
t hav
e an
y ju
dici
al o
r fin
anci
al k
now
ledg
e; I
won
't ev
en
talk
out
pra
ctic
e. T
he p
oint
is th
at, I
was
supp
osed
to b
reak
dow
n du
ring
the
inhu
man
e ac
cusa
tion
and
pres
sure
and
sign
a ra
ped
conf
essi
on a
long
with
test
ifyin
g ag
ains
t the
Cha
irm
an a
nd P
arty
act
ivity
’.• ‘
That
is w
hy I,
a y
oung
wom
an, w
as c
hose
n, w
ho, a
ccor
ding
to th
e ca
lcul
atio
ns o
f atto
rney
's, sh
ould
no
t hav
e su
rviv
ed th
e th
reat
s and
pre
ssur
e’.
• ‘I w
ant t
o as
k yo
u fr
om th
is st
and,
for w
hat c
ould
I be
faci
ng th
is?
Is th
at n
orm
al; a
re th
ose
the
met
hods
of a
fina
ncia
l cas
e in
vest
igat
ion?
’.• ‘
I am
acc
used
of i
nstr
uctin
g to
con
duct
frau
dule
nt a
ccou
ntin
g in
200
4, e
ven
thou
gh I
did
not w
ork
in
the
Labo
r Par
ty h
eadq
uart
ers a
t the
tim
e <
…>
I di
d no
t fill
in la
bor P
arty
exp
ense
s and
inco
me
in th
e de
clar
atio
ns’.
• ‘Th
e in
tere
stin
g th
ing
is th
at, a
ll th
ese
fact
s sur
face
d in
Cou
rt o
nly
this
yea
r on
Febr
uary
27
in th
e w
itnes
s hea
ring
pro
cess
, whe
re V
.Jag
min
aite
con
fess
ed to
pre
pari
ng a
nd fo
rgin
g si
gnat
ures
’.• ‘
Als
o, to
the
ques
tion,
whe
ther
such
fina
ncia
l ope
ratio
ns w
ere
conf
irmed
with
Par
ty m
anag
emen
t, th
e w
itnes
s dec
lare
d, I
quot
e: n
othi
ng w
as c
oord
inat
ed’.
• ‘H
onor
able
Sei
mas
mem
bers
, say
, is t
his n
ot a
pol
itica
l cas
e, w
hen
natio
nal i
nstit
utio
ns a
re u
nder
pr
essu
re to
fabr
icat
e it?
’.• ‘
This
is a
pol
itica
l cas
e, a
imed
at t
he L
abor
Par
ty a
nd it
s mem
bers
and
I am
just
a sm
all s
crew
’.• ‘
I bel
ieve
that
bec
ause
of y
our w
ill th
is c
ase
will
not
turn
into
a p
oliti
cal c
ruci
fixio
n’.
• ‘th
e At
torn
ey a
ssig
ned
me
with
an
esse
ntia
l rol
e in
this
ca
se’.
• ‘Th
at is
why
I, a
you
ng
wom
an, w
as c
hose
n, w
ho,
acco
rdin
g to
the
calc
ulat
ions
of
atto
rney
's, sh
ould
not
hav
e su
rviv
ed th
e th
reat
s and
pr
essu
re’.
• ‘I a
m o
nce
agai
n pu
t und
er
pres
sure
in th
e C
ourt
pro
cess
’.
• ‘W
hy d
oes t
his o
nly
surf
ace
in
Cou
rt w
hile
the
atto
rney
s don
’t w
ant t
o he
ar a
bout
this
pri
or to
th
e C
ourt
’.• ‘
Whe
n na
tiona
l ins
titut
ions
ar
e un
der p
ress
ure
to fa
bric
ate
it’.
• ‘Th
e at
torn
eys c
ould
not
file
a
law
suit
agai
nst a
jurid
ical
in
divi
dual
, the
y ne
eded
ph
ysic
al in
divi
dual
s’.
• ‘At
torn
eys d
on't
wan
t to
hear
abo
ut th
is p
rior
to th
e C
ourt
, eve
n th
ough
it is
obv
ious
’.• ‘
Whe
n na
tiona
l ins
titut
ions
are
und
er p
ress
ure
to fa
bric
ate
it’.
• ‘I b
elie
ve th
at b
ecau
se o
f you
r will
this
cas
e w
ill n
ot tu
rn in
to a
po
litic
al c
ruci
fixio
n of
a y
oung
mot
her b
ring
ing
up a
son’
.• ‘
To y
ou it
is ju
st a
pus
h of
a b
utto
n or
a p
oliti
cally
con
side
red
mov
e.
To m
e an
d m
y ba
by th
is is
the
who
le li
fe’.
• ‘I b
elie
ve th
at
beca
use
of y
our w
ill
this
cas
e w
ill n
ot tu
rn
into
a p
oliti
cal
cruc
ifixi
on o
f a y
oung
m
othe
r brin
ging
up
a so
n. T
o yo
u it
is ju
st a
pu
sh o
f a b
utto
n or
a
polit
ical
ly c
onsi
dere
d m
ove.
To
me
and
my
baby
this
is th
e w
hole
lif
e’.
Ope
ning
Arg
umen
tatio
n• ‘
The
obje
ct o
f the
cas
e is
a p
oliti
cal p
arty
and
its l
eade
rs’.
• ‘Th
e ca
se w
as in
itiat
ed a
fter t
he P
arty
won
the
2004
ele
ctio
ns’.
• ‘Fi
nanc
ial c
rime
accu
satio
ns a
re c
omm
on fo
r pol
itica
l cas
es’.
• ‘Ev
en th
ough
the
case
was
term
ed a
s fin
anci
al, i
ts in
vest
igat
ion
was
star
ted
and
cond
ucte
d by
the
Nat
iona
l Sec
urity
Dep
artm
ent’.
• ‘Pa
rt of
the
info
rmat
ion
is c
olle
cted
in a
n un
sanc
tione
d m
anne
r’.
• ‘I,
as a
wom
an, w
as p
ut u
nder
ext
rem
e pr
essu
re, a
imin
g to
ext
ract
a te
stim
ony
that
serv
ed th
eir
purp
ose’
.• ‘
The
case
was
use
d ai
min
g to
com
prom
ise
Labo
r Par
ty c
andi
date
s, w
hen
befo
re th
e se
cond
ele
ctio
n ro
und
the
accu
satio
ns w
ere
quic
kly
re-q
ualif
ied’
.• ‘
Dur
ing
the
Cou
rt pr
oces
s, th
e rig
hts o
f def
enda
nts w
as b
reac
hed
and
no a
ttent
ion
was
pai
d to
thei
r pr
otes
ts’.
• ‘Th
e ca
se in
vest
igat
ion
is n
ot o
bjec
tive’
.• ‘
Anot
her a
ppar
ent p
oliti
cal s
lap
in th
e fa
ce b
y th
e ac
cuse
rs’.
• ‘Th
e w
hole
cas
e is
fabr
icat
ed b
y us
ing
test
imon
ies o
f 2 w
omen
’.• ‘
Bec
ause
they
wer
e w
eak,
the
law
enf
orce
men
t man
ipul
ated
them
from
the
very
beg
inni
ng’.
• I a
m c
onvi
nced
that
my
case
is p
oliti
cal f
or th
e fo
llow
ing
reas
ons.
• Dur
ing
the
Cou
rt p
roce
ss, t
he
right
s of d
efen
dant
s wer
e
brea
ched
” • ‘
The
law
enf
orce
men
t m
anip
ulat
ed th
em’.
• ‘I,
as a
wom
an, w
as p
ut u
nder
ext
rem
e pr
essu
re, a
imin
g to
ext
ract
a
test
imon
y th
at se
rved
thei
r pur
pose
’.• ‘
Dur
ing
the
Cou
rt p
roce
ss, t
he ri
ghts
of d
efen
dant
s wer
e br
each
ed’.
(impl
icit
– no
t to
vote
)
(impl
icit
– no
t to
vote
)
• ‘I w
as su
ppos
ed to
bre
ak d
own
durin
g th
e in
hum
ane
accu
satio
ns a
nd
pres
sure
and
sign
a ra
ped
conf
essi
on’.
• ‘Th
at is
why
I, a
you
ng w
oman
, was
cho
sen,
who
, acc
ordi
ng to
the
calc
ulat
ions
of a
ttorn
ey's,
shou
ld n
ot h
ave
surv
ived
the
thre
ats a
nd
pres
sure
’.• ‘
I esp
ecia
lly w
ant t
o em
phas
ize
the
extr
aord
inar
y at
tem
pts b
y at
torn
eys t
o sc
are
me
and
brea
k m
e do
wn
by sh
owin
g ho
rror
like
ph
otos
, tha
t sho
wed
dea
d bo
dies
with
hea
ds d
ug u
p fro
m g
rave
s, w
ith
tied
arm
s and
legs
, afte
r bru
tal t
ortu
re. I
t was
impl
ied
that
a fu
ture
like
th
is is
wai
ting
for m
e’.
• ‘Is
that
nor
mal
; are
thos
e th
e m
etho
ds o
f a fi
nanc
ial c
ase
inve
stig
atio
n?’.
• ‘Th
e ca
se a
nd ju
dici
al a
ctio
ns a
re p
ublic
ized
inte
ntio
nally
. I a
m o
nce
agai
n pu
t und
er p
ress
ure
in th
e C
ourt
proc
ess’
.• ‘
Acc
usat
ions
surf
ace
of st
allin
g th
e ca
se. T
he a
ccus
atio
ns a
ppea
r due
to
pre
gnan
cy a
nd fl
u. B
ut a
m I
stal
ling
the
case
, whe
n I a
m tr
ying
with
al
l my
stre
ngth
to sa
ve m
y ba
by's
life?
’.• ‘
That
’s w
hy a
lot o
f doc
tors
giv
e m
e hi
nts –
we
can
have
a lo
t of
prob
lem
s bec
ause
of y
ou m
aybe
you
shou
ld g
o so
mew
here
els
e?’.
• ‘Al
l of t
his i
s hap
peni
ng is
a m
oder
n de
moc
ratic
cou
ntry
’.
(impl
icit
– no
t to
vote
)
Dia
gnos
is o
f the
pr
oble
mM
oral
ju
dgem
ent
Rem
edy
sugg
estio
n
Table 11. Case study frame extraction results
53
Step five: applying the strategic maneuvering concept to identify the framing techniques
used in the frame construction
It was mentioned in Chapter 4 that a useful point of departure for the analysis of strategic
maneuvering is the specification of the discourse context and audience, as it will make the
analysis results more insightful, coherent and realistic for the analyst. The context and audience
of our text is specified in step one, p. 45 of this chapter. In table 12 on pages 55-56, we present
the findings of the strategic maneuvering analysis carried out for the speech under investigation.
For the purpose of brevity, we will overview the construction of problem definition and moral
evaluation frame elements, through insights gained in the strategic maneuvering analysis.
Findings:
The construction of the problem definition was persistent through all of the discussion stages.
We have noted that the speaker defined the issue as a political case, implying that she is being
politically persecuted, albeit failing to mention what she might be politically persecuted for. In
the confrontation stage, the arguer prepares the political case frame grounds, by narrating the
issue to the fellow parliamentarians. Although a relatively broad range of topics are covered in
the narrative account, their explication is not touched upon. The audience is presented with
cherry picked facts, all of which work to delegitimize the accusations. Indeed, it can be said that
the political case frame is being built through the continuous delegitimization of accusations, in
such way as if proving the speaker’s innocence. E.g, the speaker is being accused of fraudulent
accounting, but she didn’t work in the Labor Party at the time; she was only 24; she did not have
any experience; the witnesses have confirmed to not have received any instructions to forge
accounting from Ms.Vonzutaite. What is more, national institutions are under pressure to
fabricate the case, whereas Vonzuntaite, was ‘calculated’ to not have survived the threats and
pressure. In this light, the argumentation stage provides an array of arguments that presumably
resonate with Scott Horton’s ‘political case criteria’ and are supposed to confirm the lack of
legitimacy in the accusations. The conclusion stage identifies the presented evidence as obvious
of her innocence and once again mentions the motives of the indicters. All in all, it can be said,
54
that the problem definition element of the frame is being constructed through delegitimization of
the accusations and appeal to the suspicious motives of the indicters.
The construction of moral evaluation was persistent through confrontation, argumentation
and concluding stages. We have noted that the speaker built the issue as immoral. Strategic
maneuvering analysis results allow concluding that in the confrontation stage this was done
through the use of a vivid portrayal of the investigative process, followed by its immediate
juxtaposition with the personal life repercussion that the speaker has faced in light of the
accusations. Note, the mention of a complicated child birth and medical institution alienation are
probably the strongest moral evaluations of the situation within this stage, acting not only as
frame building blocks, but also audience persuasion devices by appealing to their emotions and
compassion. In the argumentation stage, the speaker’s presentation of argument 1.1.6 is as an
attribute to the moral evaluation. The argument is presented in a shaky, tearful voice, once again
acting as an audience persuasion device through its appeal to emotion and pity. In the concluding
stage, the speaker continually provides a powerful juxtaposition – young mother bringing up a
son versus national institutions fabricating a case. Moral evaluation is empowered by mentioning
the motives of the accusers along with defining the situation as political crucifixion. Tears power
the impact of the concluding stage. All in all, it can be said that the moral evaluation element of
the frame is constructed through the use of appeals to emotion and pity, powered by attention
grabbing mental imagery that is associated with the investigation of the case.
Speaking in the ‘standard’ framing technique terms, the speaker can be said to be using
the unbeatable culturally resonant symbol – a young woman/mother – who is being politically
persecuted. This culturally resonant symbol is evoked five times throughout duration of the
speech (confrontation stage x 3, argumentation stage x 1, concluding stage x 1), increasing its
persuasive potential by repetition. What is more, exploitation of the personal life consequences
can be said to constitute an instance of the frame alignment process, by amplifying the values
associated with motherhood and children that are presumably valued by the primary audience,
but have not yet surfaced as a basis for support of the speaker. Also note that women,
representing non Labor Party parliament members, make up 19% of the voting body.
Topical selection Presenttional devices
Con
fron
tatio
n st
age
Wha
t are
the
choi
ces o
f iss
ues o
r cr
itiqu
es?
1) A
dopt
ion
of a
neg
ativ
e st
andp
oint
tow
ards
the
prop
ositi
on.
2) C
hoic
es o
f iss
ues:
• pro
ject
ion
of c
onse
quen
ces,
i.e. ‘
My
futu
re d
epen
ds
on it
’• e
xpla
natio
n of
acc
usat
ions
,• s
elf j
ustif
icat
ion
on a
ccus
atio
ns, i
.e. a
ge, e
xper
ienc
e,
not w
orki
ng in
the
labo
r par
ty a
t the
tim
e of
crim
inal
ac
tivity
,• m
otiv
es o
f the
indi
cter
s,• p
roce
ss o
f inv
estig
atio
n,• p
erso
nal l
ife re
perc
ussi
on,
• witn
ess t
estim
ony
mat
eria
l.
Wha
t is t
he p
rese
ntat
iona
l des
ign
of is
sues
or
criti
ques
?
1) T
he is
sues
are
intro
duce
d in
a n
arra
tive
form
.2)
The
use
of g
rues
ome
deta
ils to
re-te
ll th
e pr
oces
s of
inve
stig
atio
n.
3) T
he u
se o
f an
emot
iona
l rec
aptu
ring
of th
e pe
rson
al li
fe re
perc
ussi
ons.
4) T
he u
se o
f witn
ess t
estim
ony
quot
atio
ns,
pres
entin
g th
eir i
mm
edia
te c
onte
xt w
ith a
rath
er b
rief
intro
duct
ion.
5)
The
use
of t
ears
to p
rese
nt th
e gr
ueso
me
proc
ess
of in
vest
igat
ion
and
pers
onal
life
repe
rcus
sion
de
tails
.
Wha
t is t
he p
rese
ntat
iona
l des
ign
of th
e pr
oced
ural
and
mat
eria
l sta
rtin
g po
ints
?
1) S
cott
Hor
ton
is id
entif
ied
as a
fam
ous U
nite
d St
ates
law
yer.
2) S
cott
Hor
ton’
s arti
cle
is id
entif
ied
as p
oliti
cal
case
crit
eria
.
Wha
t is t
he p
rese
ntat
iona
l des
ign
of a
rgum
ents
?
1) T
he fi
rst n
ine
argu
men
ts a
re b
rief,
pres
ente
d in
a
num
bere
d se
quen
ce.
1.1)
Arg
umen
t 1.1
.6 is
pre
sent
ed in
a sh
aky,
tear
ful
voic
e.2)
The
rest
of t
he a
rgum
ents
are
pre
sent
ed in
a
narr
ativ
e lik
e fo
rm, e
nded
by
a rh
etor
ical
que
stio
n,
i.e. ‘
Say,
how
can
this
be
expl
aine
d?’.
2.1)
The
spea
ker u
ses a
sarc
astic
tone
of v
oice
pr
esen
ting
argu
men
t 1.1
.11b
. By
usin
g a
spec
ific
form
of t
he n
oun
‘wom
en’ i
n th
e Li
thua
nian
la
ngua
ge, i
.e. ‘
mot
eriš
kės’
, the
witn
esse
s are
bei
ng
dele
gitim
ized
, ref
erre
d to
in a
dem
eani
ng w
ay.
Wha
t is t
he p
rese
ntat
iona
l des
ign
of th
e co
nclu
sion
?
1) C
oncl
usio
n st
arts
with
2 q
uest
ions
-
pres
umpt
uous
, i.e
.‘why
am
I be
ing
incr
imin
ated
(…
) eve
n th
ough
it is
obv
ious
’ and
sug
gest
ive,
i.e.
‘s
ay, i
s thi
s not
a p
oliti
cal c
ase’
.2)
Que
stio
ns a
re fo
llow
ed b
y an
imm
edia
te a
nsw
er,
reite
ratin
g th
e po
litic
al c
ase
notio
n.
3) T
he a
nsw
er le
ads t
o an
othe
r nar
rativ
e ac
coun
t, w
hich
pre
sent
s the
mot
ives
of t
he in
dict
ers.
4) T
he c
oncl
usio
n is
clo
sed
off w
ith a
ple
a to
fello
w
parli
amen
taria
ns.
5) A
ccus
atio
ns a
re d
efin
ed a
s pol
itica
l cru
cifix
ion.
6) T
he sp
eake
r sta
rts sh
owin
g te
ars a
t the
beg
inni
ng
of th
e co
nclu
sion
stag
e an
d, su
bseq
uent
ly, s
tarts
to
cry
durin
g th
e de
liver
y of
the
last
sent
ence
s.
Wha
t pro
cedu
ral a
nd/o
r m
ater
ial s
tart
ing
poin
ts
are
chos
en fo
r th
e di
scus
sion
?
1) N
otes
writ
ten
by th
e sp
eake
r. 2)
Arti
cle
by S
cott
Hor
ton.
Wha
t typ
es o
f arg
umen
ts a
re u
sed
to d
efen
d or
cr
itici
ze th
e is
sue?
1) S
ympt
omat
ic a
rgum
enta
tion.
2)
Com
plex
arg
umen
tatio
n st
ruct
ure
with
a to
tal o
f 11
arg
umen
ts u
sed
to d
efen
d th
e is
sue.
Wha
t con
clus
ion
is e
stab
lishe
d in
reg
ard
to th
e di
scus
sion
?
1) T
he sp
eake
r, su
mm
ariz
es th
e st
ory
and
lead
s the
au
dien
ce to
an
indi
rect
con
clus
ion,
i.e.
: the
spea
ker
is in
crim
inat
ed w
ith o
ffens
es sh
e di
dn’t
do->
the
atto
rney
s are
not
pay
ing
atte
ntio
n to
evi
denc
e th
at
she
didn
’t co
mm
it th
e of
fens
es->
nat
iona
l in
stitu
tions
are
und
er p
ress
ure
to fa
bric
ate
the
case
->th
at is
why
this
is a
pol
itica
l cas
e->t
he fe
llow
pa
rliam
enta
rians
can
, due
to th
eir g
ood
will
, sav
e th
e sp
eake
r fro
m p
oliti
cal c
ruci
fixio
n->
(ther
efor
e:
they
shou
ld n
ot v
ote
to re
tract
her
imm
unity
).
Ope
ning
stag
e
Con
tinue
d on
nex
t pag
e
Arg
umen
tatio
n st
age
Con
clud
ing
stag
e
Table 12. Case study strategic maneuvering results
Audience adaptation
Con
fron
tatio
n st
age
How
doe
s the
cho
ice
of is
sues
or
criti
ques
and
thei
r pr
esen
tatio
nal d
esig
n re
sona
tes o
r is
adj
uste
d to
au
dien
ce p
refe
renc
es?
1) T
he c
hoic
e to
ado
pt a
neg
ativ
e st
andp
oint
, co
ntes
ting
the
accu
satio
ns re
info
rces
the
appa
rent
in
noce
nce
of th
e sp
eake
r.2)
Pro
ject
ions
of c
onse
quen
ces f
or th
e sp
eake
r’s
futu
re re
info
rce
the
impo
rtanc
e of
the
votin
g ou
tcom
e to
the
spea
ker,
at th
e sa
me
time
poss
ibly
mor
ally
co
nstra
inin
g th
e vo
ters
.3)
The
nar
rativ
e re
intro
duce
s the
issu
e to
the
audi
ence
s, al
low
ing
to m
entio
n se
lf se
lect
ed p
oint
s an
d el
imin
atin
g th
e ot
hers
.4)
Witn
ess t
estim
ony
quot
atio
n se
lect
ion
dele
gitim
izes
the
accu
satio
ns. N
ote
the
imm
edia
te
cont
ext o
f the
quo
tatio
ns is
not
spec
ified
. Quo
tatio
ns
may
be
pers
uasi
ve to
aud
ienc
es m
embe
rs th
at a
re n
ot
acqu
aint
ed w
ith th
e w
itnes
s tes
timon
y tra
nscr
ipt
5) G
rues
ome
inve
stig
atio
n de
tails
are
like
ly to
cap
ture
au
dien
ce a
ttent
ion,
evo
ke h
orro
r and
com
pass
ion.
6) P
erso
nal l
ife re
perc
ussi
on d
etai
ls a
nd te
ars a
re
likel
y to
app
eal t
o au
dien
ce e
mot
ion,
evo
ke
com
pass
ion.
How
doe
s the
cho
ice
of m
ater
ial a
nd/o
r pr
oced
ural
star
ting
poin
ts a
nd th
eir
pres
enta
tiona
l des
ign
reso
nate
s or
is a
djus
ted
with
aud
ienc
e pr
efer
ence
s?
1) N
otes
are
giv
en si
gnifi
canc
e in
ligh
t of ‘
a ne
rvou
s st
ate’
the
spea
ker i
dent
ifies
her
self
in d
urin
g th
e op
enin
g lin
e of
the
spee
ch.
2) A
rticl
e by
Sco
tt H
orto
n, th
e id
entif
icat
ion
of h
is
artic
le a
s ‘po
litic
al c
ase
crite
ria’ a
nd h
is
iden
tific
atio
n as
a fa
mou
s law
yer,
may
wor
k as
le
gitim
izin
g de
vice
s for
the
prim
ary
audi
ence
. It c
an
be a
ssum
ed th
at th
is c
hoic
e of
a st
artin
g po
int w
ould
ha
ve a
cha
nce
of b
eing
mor
e no
tew
orth
y in
ligh
t of
the
audi
ence
con
cern
ed.
How
doe
s the
cho
ice
of a
rgum
ents
and
thei
r pr
esen
tatio
nal d
esig
n re
sona
tes o
r is
adj
uste
d w
ith a
udie
nce
pref
eren
ces?
1) S
ympt
omat
ic a
rgum
ents
act
as s
igns
, in
this
cas
e - f
acts
, ind
icat
ing
the
truth
fuln
ess o
f the
stan
dpoi
nt
and,
con
sequ
ently
, of t
he p
oliti
cal c
ase
fram
e.
2) It
is li
kely
that
thes
e ty
pes o
f arg
umen
ts a
re th
e m
ost p
ersu
asiv
e in
ligh
t of t
he g
iven
prim
ary
audi
ence
, to
dele
gitim
ize
the
accu
satio
ns a
nd m
ake
the
stan
dpoi
nt o
f the
spea
ker a
logi
cal s
olut
ion.
3) T
he a
rgum
ent 1
.1.6
and
its p
rese
ntat
ion
are
likel
y to
app
eal t
o em
otio
n an
d pi
ty a
mon
g th
e au
dien
ce.
How
doe
s the
cho
ice
of a
con
clus
ion
and
its
pres
enta
tiona
l des
ign
reso
nate
s or
is a
djus
ted
to
audi
ence
pre
fere
nces
?
1) S
ugge
stiv
e an
d pr
esum
ptuo
us q
uest
ions
and
the
mot
ives
of i
ndic
ters
may
del
egiti
miz
e th
e ac
cusa
tions
.2)
The
pur
pose
and
mea
ning
of v
otin
g in
the
plea
ov
ersi
mpl
ified
– it
is c
laim
ed th
at to
pol
itici
ans i
t is
just
a p
ush
of a
but
ton
– in
oth
er w
ords
a re
lativ
ely
mea
ning
less
eve
nt. T
his g
ives
the
fello
w
parli
amen
taria
ns p
ower
, yet
at t
he sa
me
time
indi
rect
ly c
onst
rain
ing
them
with
a su
bseq
uent
ju
xtap
ositi
on th
at th
e sp
eake
r pla
ces h
erse
lf in
. She
, in
this
cas
e, is
a y
oung
mot
her b
ringi
ng u
p a
son;
to
them
this
vot
ing
is th
eir w
hole
life
– in
oth
er w
ords
, a
criti
cal e
vent
. Thi
s jux
tapo
sitio
n m
ay e
voke
a
mor
al c
onsi
dera
tion
and
indu
ce p
ress
ure
amon
gst
the
vote
rs. N
ote
the
spea
ker i
s im
plyi
ng th
at sh
e be
lieve
s pol
itici
ans t
o be
of g
ood
will
. 3
) Rei
tera
ting
the
youn
g w
oman
/mot
her t
hem
e,
pow
ered
by
a te
arfu
l con
clus
ion
may
app
eal t
o th
eem
otio
ns a
nd p
ity a
mon
g th
e au
dien
ce.
Ope
ning
stag
eA
rgum
enta
tion
stag
eC
oncl
udin
g st
age
57
Chapter 6: Conclusion
The objective of this thesis has been to portray how the pragma dialectical theory, along with its
analytical concepts and methods can be used in framing analysis, for the purpose of extracting
frames and identifying framing techniques. The objective was raised in light of an attempt to
suggest and cultivate a new method of frame analysis for examining discourse, in our case
focusing on the political arena.
Structurally, the thesis was composed of two parts, aiming to achieve the set objective.
The first part was used for an overview of the two theoretical entities. This overview proceeded
with an explication of the framing concept. This explication illuminated the function of framing,
along with its purposes, workings and effects. It was noted that frames and framing, as in the
words of Kinder and Nelson (2005, p. 103), ‘lead a double life.’ On the one hand, frames and
framing are used to construct realities, on the other hand, frames and framing are successfully
used to deconstruct and interpret them. Framing as in the construction of reality entails tactical
and observable communicative actions, conduct and design, whereas cognitive framing is
something that is less tangible due to its intuitive nature. Strategic framing is widely used in
different spheres of communication. The ultimate aim of strategic framing is essentially the
generation of support for the framed topic or issue. This is mainly achieved through the use of
verbal language, by specific performance of discourse, calculated to evoke preferential
interpretations of addressees that are at the same time favorable for the interested parties in light
of their aims.
The theoretical overview continued with an introduction of the pragma-dialectical theory.
Here, an effort was made to outline the notional grounds of pragma-dialectics, which are
pertinent for the comprehension and application of the concepts and analytical methods offered
within the theory. It was emphasized that pragma-dialectics is a theory dealing with
argumentative discourse, that is seen both as a product of reasoning and as an activity that
individuals rather frequently undertake. In regard to argumentative discourse as an activity,
pragma-dialecticians conceptualize it as a critical discussion, where an individual or individuals
participate and are determined to remove or prevent the doubt of critics toward a certain
standpoint that they have adopted and which has escalated or can potentially escalate
disagreement. The critical discussion notion paves way for multifarious yet complemental
58
analytical procedures, which albeit being designed for the evaluation of argumentation, can just
as well be used for the analysis of frames and framing.
This point was touched upon more profoundly in the second part of the thesis, which was
used to first of all explain how the pragma-dialectical analysis would be used for frame
extraction and then how the pragma-dialectical analysis would be used for the identification of
framing techniques. This resulted in method, generated for framing analysis. In summary, the
analysis through the method would consist of a five-step process.21 In step one the researcher
would identify the context and audience of the discourse. Step two would entail reconstructing
the text in terms of the ideal model of the critical discussion. Step three would be used to build
an analytical overview of the text. Step four would be used to extract a frame from the discourse.
Last, in step five the concept of strategic maneuvering would be applied to identify the
techniques used to construct the frame.
Frame extraction, step four, would be aided by the use of a table (see p. 38), where each
pragma-dialectical discussion stage would be scanned for frame elements deduced from
Entman’s conceptualization of framing. The findings of frame elements, in turn, could be
verified by observing their reoccurrence throughout the critical discussion stages as represented
in the table. Framing technique identification, step five, would be aided by the application of the
profoundly context dependent strategic maneuvering concept and the analytical questions
pertinent for its observation (see p. 40).
Consequently, this approach was applied to an analysis of a discourse sample from a
Lithuanian Parliamentary hearing. More specifically, to a speech presented in the Lithuanian
Parliament, regarding a high-profile public issue by a well-known politician. The five-step
approach allowed a structured and efficient analysis that resulted in insightful data from which
frame elements and their manifestations were generated. The use of the vertical comparison table
allowed verifying the persistent existence of frame elements in the discourse sample, which
provided confidence in their proclamation. Additionally, the analysis resulted in the
identification of the techniques used to build two of the frame elements – problem definition and
moral evaluation. The identified techniques were then equated with their possible counterparts
found in the ‘standard’ framing technique literature.
21 Given that the text for analysis is recognized as being an instance of argumentative discourse, so the pragma-dialectical theory could be applied. In our method recognition of the text as argumentative is seen as step zero, or else, the preliminary step of the analysis.
59
Perhaps a useful concluding remark would be a consideration of the possible advantages
and disadvantages that the synthesis of these two theoretical entities would bring in analytical
endeavors. In terms of disadvantages, pragma-dialectics is a difficult theory to master, not only
conceptually but also process-wise. Certain elements of the theory, pertinent to its analysis, as
the argumentation scheme identification, for example, require comprehension of yet another
discipline - logic, whereas strategic maneuvering analysis could greatly benefit from insights on
rhetoric. This may in turn result in a lengthy and, consequently, less attractive analysis method of
the framing concept. Moreover, the pragma-dialectical theory is only applicable to one text at a
time, which as a requirement must be argumentative. Simultaneously, from the perspective of
pragma-dialectics, its application to framing analysis may at times result in the alteration of the
theory, more precisely, exclusion of elements that although being an important aspect of the
theory, are considered to be irrelevant when it comes to framing.
Of course, there are several significant advantages of applying the pragma-dialectical
theory, along with its concepts and analytical methods for framing analysis. For one, the analysis
and the generation of results become systematic, in turn making the process coherent and lucid.
Each stage of the five-step approach has clear goals and procedures that work towards and are
connected to reaching the essential objectives of the analysis – the extraction of frames and the
identification of framing techniques – in this sense, also, acting as guidelines for purposeful and
productive research. Simultaneously, due to the systemization of the analysis procedure, the
steps of the analyst can be retraced, allowing research findings to be replicated and validated.
Looking solely at framing techniques, the concept of strategic maneuvering provides a
context dependent analytical procedure that allows identifying the methods and tactics employed
in the construction of frames, considering the specific demographics of the audience, their
preferences and the circumstances where the discourse is conducted. By this type of approach,
framing techniques bear more comprehension for the analyst, as the reasons for their selection
and function become more vivid.
In regard to frame extraction, the comparison of the extrapolated discourse frames within
our proposed table allows verifying their existence in the text. Even though that in any case
frame extraction will inevitably to some degree depend upon the researcher’s interpretations,
vertical in-text comparison can increase the confidence that an extracted frame truly figures in
the discourse. What is more, pragma-dialectics brings in the argumentation dimension to the
60
analysis, which not only expands its depth, but also provides additional reference points for the
justification of framing analysis findings.
61
BIBLIOGRAPHY Chong, D., Druckman, J.N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. Crable, R.E. (1976). Argumentation as Communication. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Druckman J.N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23 (3), 225–56. Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Floris Publications. Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R., Blair.A., Willards, C.A. (Eds). (1986). Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Dordrecht-Providence: Foris Eemeren, F. H.van (Ed.). (2002). Advances in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam : Sic Sat ; Newport News, VA: Vale Press. Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S (2002). Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eemeren, F.H.van. (2010).Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse : extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Studies in rhetoric and communication. Tuscaloosa The Univerity of Alabama Press. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading Activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame After 9/11. Political Communication, 20, 415-432. Gabrielson, T. (2005). Obstacles and Opportunities: Factors that constrain elected officials ability to frame political issues. In K. Callaghan & F. Schnell (Eds.), Framing American Politics (pp.76-103). Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press. Gamson, W. (1975) Review: Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. by Erving Goffman. Contenporary Sociology, 4(6), 603-607. Gamson, W. A., Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. D. Braungart (Ed.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137–177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis. New York: Free Press. Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3), 205–242. Hallahan, K. (2008). Strategic framing. Entry in Wolfgang Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication,10, 4855-4860. Oxford/Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
62
Heath, R.L. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of Public Relations, Volume 1. California: Sage. Hertog, J.K., Mcleod, D.M. (2001). A Multiperspectival Approach to Framing Analysis: a Field Guide. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy Jr., A. E.Grant (Eds.), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the social World. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hitchcock, D. & Wagemans, J. (2011). The pragma-dialectical account of argument schemes. In E.Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics: in honor of French H. of Eemeren (pp. 185-205). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Jacoby, W.G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American. Journal of Political Sciences, 44,750–67. Kahneman,D., Tversky, A. (Ed.) (2000). Choices, Values and Frames. Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, D.; Tversky, A. (1984). "Choices, values and frames". American Psychologist, 39 (4), 341–350. Kaufman, Sanda, Michael Elliott and Deborah Shmueli. "Frames, Framing and Reframing." Beyond Intractability. Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: September 2003 http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/framing. Kinder, D.R., Nelson, T.E. (2005). Democratic Debate and Opinions. In K.Callaghan & F.Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press. König, T. Frame Analysis. (2007). [online]. Available at: http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/frameanalysis/ Kosicki, G.M. “Issue Definition (Framing)” in P.J. Lavrakas, Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. 2007 [online].Available at: http://srmo.sagepub.com/view/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n254.xml Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know your Values and Frame the Debate. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing. Maher, T.M. (2001). Framing: An Emerging Paradigm or a Phase of Agenda Setting. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy Jr., A. E.Grant (Eds.), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the social World. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Matthes, J. & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258-279. Minsky, M. (1974) A framework for representing knowledge. MIT-AI Laboratory Memo 306 June 1974 [Online]. Available at: http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html Perelman, C. (1982). The Realm of Rhetoric. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. Plug, J. (2010) Institutional Boundaries on the Evaluation of Argumentation in Legislative Discussions. Legisprudence. International Journal for the Study of Legislation . Volume IV, No 1, pp. 53-69.
63
Sellers, P. (2010). Cycles of Spin: Strategic Communication in the U.S. Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press. Scheff, T. J. (2005). The Structure of Context: Deciphering Frame Analysis [Online]. Available at: http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/scheff/main.php?id=43.html Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 41 (1), 103-122. Sniderman, P.M., Theriault, S.M. (2004). The Dynamics of Political Arguments and The Logic of Issue Framing. In W.E.Saris and P.M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Snow, D.A., E.Rochford, B.E., Jr., Worden, S.K., Benford, R.D. (1986). Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization and Movement Participation. American Sociological Review, 51 (4), 464-481. Tannen, D (Ed.). (1993). Framing in Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251-278. Other: Speech by Vitalija Vonzutaite on December 20, 2012. Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania [Online]. Available at: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter2/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=440348. “Code of Behavior for the Nation’s politicians”, September 19, 2006. Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania [Online]. Available at: http://www3.lrs.lt/docs3/kad6/w6_istorija.show6p_r=6223&p_d=81455&p_k=1.html.
64
APPENDIX Original speech by Vitalija Vonzutaite, delivered on December 20, 2012 in the Lithuanian
Parliament.
V. VONŽUTAITĖ (DPF). Labas vakaras, gerbiamasis Seimo Pirmininke, Seimo nariai! Aš kalbėsiu gerokai
trumpiau.
PIRMININKAS. Vitalija, arčiau mikrofono. Jūsų negirdėti.
V. VONŽUTAITĖ (DPF). Taip, aš jaudinuosi kalbėdama šita tema, nuo jos priklauso mano ateitis, todėl kalba
bus trumpa. Šiek tiek pasirašiau, kelis žodžius, kad nepraleisčiau to, ką noriu jums pasakyti. Jūs visi turėjote
galimybę susipažinti su garsaus JAV teisininko S. Hortono pabrėžtais politinės bylos kriterijais. Esu įsitikinusi,
kad mano byla yra politinė dėl šių priežasčių.
Pirma. Bylos objektas yra politinė partija ir jos vadovai. Antra. Byla pradėta partijai laimėjus rinkimus
2004 metais. Trečia. Politinėms byloms būdingi kaltinimai finansiniais nusikaltimais. Ketvirta. Nors byla vadi-
nama finansine, jos tyrimą pradėjo ir vedė Valstybės saugumo departamentas. Penkta. Dalis informacijos su-
rinkta nesankcionuotai. Šešta. Man, kaip moteriai, buvo daromas ypatingas spaudimas, siekiant išgauti jiems
atitinkamus parodymus. Septinta. Byla buvo naudojama norint sukompromituoti Darbo partijos kandidatus, kai
prieš antrąjį rinkimų turą buvo skubiai perkvalifikuoti kaltinimai. Aštunta. Teismo metu buvo pažeidžiamos
kaltinamųjų teisės ir nekreipiama dėmesio į jų protestus. Devinta. Bylos nagrinėjimas nėra objektyvus.
Gerbiamieji Seimo nariai, prokuroras šioje byloje skyrė man esminį vaidmenį. Seimo komisijai jis pateikė
įspūdingą schemą, kurioje tai pavaizduota. Kaltinamajame akte surašytos milijoninės sumos, kurias neva aš
kažkaip susiorganizavau. Patikėkite, tokių sumų nesu mačiusi. Negaliu įsivaizduoti, kaip jos galėtų atrodyti.
Esu kaltinama apgaulingos buhalterijos vedimu, dabar jau ir sukčiavimu. Bet, gerbiamieji Seimo nariai, tuo
metu man buvo tik 24 metai. Teisinių ir buhalterinių žinių neturėjau, jau nekalbant apie praktiką. Visa esmė ta,
kad esant nežmoniškam kaltinimui ir spaudimui turėjau palūžti ir pasirašyti išprievartautą prisipažinimą bei
liudyti prieš pirmininką ir partijos veiklą.
Būtent todėl buvau pasirinkta aš, jauna moteris, kuri pagal prokurorų apskaičiavimus turėjo neatlaikyti
gąsdinimų ir spaudimų. Ypač noriu pažymėti neeilines prokurorų pastangas mane įbauginti ir palaužti rodant
siaubą keliančias nuotraukas, kuriose buvo pavaizduoti iš žemės iškasti lavonai be galvų, surištomis rankomis ir
kojomis, po žiaurių kankinimų. Man buvo peršama, kad manęs laukia būtent tokia ateitis. Iš šios tribūnos aš
noriu paklausti, už ką man tai galėtų grėsti? Ar tai normalu, ar tai finansinės bylos tyrimo metodai?
Bylos tyrimui buvo skiriamas ypatingas dėmesys, sutelktos neeilinės pareigūnų pajėgos. Specialiai bylos eiga
ir teisėsaugos veiksmai ypač skambiai išviešinti žiniasklaidoje. Teismo metu mano atžvilgiu toliau daromas
spaudimas. Atsiranda kaltinimai bylos vilkinimu. Kaltinimai atsiranda dėl nėštumo ir gripo. Bet ar bandydama
visomis jėgomis išsaugoti savo kūdikio gyvybę aš vilkinu bylą?
65
2011 m., ačiū Dievui, pagimdžiau sveiką sūnų. Po visų patirtų išgyvenimų, spaudimų ir streso dėl šito aš
jaudinausi labiausiai. Po gimdymo man buvo sutrikusi sveikata. Iki šiol jaučiu viso šito pasekmes. Visų medi-
cinos įstaigų, į kurias kreipiausi ar gydžiausi, veikla buvo intensyviai tikrinama. Mane gydančiai gydytojai iš-
kelta baudžiamoji byla, neva ji klastoja pažymas. Dėl to dauguma gydytojų duoda užuominas – per tave mes
galime turėti problemų, gal tu kreipkis kur kitur? Visa tai vyksta šiuolaikinėje demokratinėje valstybėje.
Dar vienas ryškus kaltintojų politinis akibrokštas – kaltinimų perkvalifikavimas į sunkų nusikaltimą ant-
rojo rinkimų turo išvakarėse, nors jokių naujų faktinių aplinkybių neatsirado. Visa byla sukurpta pasitelkiant
dviejų moterų parodymus, kurios prieš tai, dar iki šios bylos, turėjo problemų su teisėsauga. Viena – dėl doku-
mentų klastojimo, kita – dėl neteisėtų valiutų operacijų. Maža to, vėliau viena prisipažino, kad iki Darbo parti-
jos vedė kelių įmonių dvigubas buhalterijas.
Akivaizdu, kad abi moteriškės yra pažeidžiamos. Todėl, kad jos buvo pažeidžiamos, teisėsauga nuo pat
pradžių jomis manipuliavo. Be to, nė viena iš šių moterų tuo metu nedirbo Darbo partijoje, bet jos šioje byloje
tapo pagrindinėmis liudytojomis, kurios už padarytas veikas atleistos nuo baudžiamosios atsakomybės. Saky-
kite, kaip tai paaiškinti?
Aš esu kaltinama, kad 2004 m. pavedžiau vesti apgaulingą buhalteriją, nors tuo metu net nedirbau Darbo
partijos centrinėje būstinėje, kad nuo 2004 m. sausio 1 d. neįrašiau į deklaracijas Darbo partijos pajamų ir išlai-
dų, nors Darbo partijos centrinėje būstinėje pradėjau dirbti ir įgaliojimą pasirašinėti dokumentus gavau tik
2005 m. Liudytoja Virginija Jagminaitė teisme apklausos metu pripažino, kad ji rengdavo, įrašydavo, pasirašy-
davo ir pateikdavo atitinkamoms institucijoms mėnesinius, ketvirtinius ir metinius dokumentus, pasirašydama
juos už mane. Įdomu tai, kad visi šie faktai iškilo tik teisme šių metų vasario 27 d. liudytojos apklausos metu,
kur V. Jagminaitė prisipažino, kad rengė dokumentus ir klastojo parašus. Be to, į klausimą, ar buvo derinama
su partijos vadovybe tokia buhalterijos vedimo tvarka, liudytoja aiškiai pasakė, cituoju: tikrai niekas nebuvo
derinama. Ar nurodė kas nors neteisėtai apgaulingai vesti apskaitą? Atsakymas: tikrai tokių nurodymų nebuvo.
Tai kodėl nusikaltimai inkriminuojami man ir kodėl tai iškyla tik teisme, o ikiteisminio tyrimo metu pro-
kurorai nenori to aiškintis, nors tai akivaizdu? Gerbiamieji Seimo nariai, pasakykite, ar tai ne politinė byla, kai
spaudžiamos valstybinės institucijos ją fabrikuoja? Ši politinė byla yra nukreipta prieš Darbo partiją ir jos ly-
derį, o aš tik nedidelis sraigtelis. Bet juk prokurorai negalėjo iškelti bylos juridiniam asmeniui, jiems reikėjo fi-
zinių asmenų. Taip šioje byloje atsiradau ir aš.
Gerbiamieji Seimo nariai, tikiu, kad jūsų valia ši politinė byla nepavirs į politinį susidorojimą su jauna
kūdikį auginančia mama. Jums tai tik mygtuko paspaudimas ar politiškai apgalvotas žingsnis. O man ir mano
vaikui tai visas gyvenimas. Ačiū už dėmesį.
PIRMININKAS. Dėkoju V. Vonžutaitei. Dvi nuomonės už, dvi prieš. K. Masiulis – už. Ruošiasi L. Grau-
žinienė – prieš.
66
top related