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