1155086

editorial2023
DIS0010.1177/14614456231155086Discourse StudiesEditorial

Editorial

Discourse Studies
1­–2
Frame analysis © The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14614456231155086
https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231155086
journals.sagepub.com/home/dis

Introduction
Scholars in many disciplines of the humanities and social sciences have used the notion
of ‘frame’ to analyze language, discourse, interaction, cognition, news, interaction, and
social movements, thus showing the multidisciplinary conceptual relevance of the
notion. Inevitably this also means that the notion has been used in many different ways
and to describe many different phenomena.
For a journal like Discourse Studies, the relevance of frame analysis is obviously
related to its possible applications in the description of specific structures of text or talk.
Such as been the case in cognitive linguistics in the study of the conceptual frames defin-
ing word meanings, undoubtedly related to the structures of knowledge, notably initiated
by the work of Charles Fillmore in the 1970s. Similarly, the semantic structures of sen-
tences may be organized by an underlying schema of actor roles (Agent, Patient, etc.)
that also could be called a frame, also studied by Fillmore. These semantic frames are
related to the structure of mental models of situations and events that have become very
popular in the psychology of discourse processing since the 1980s, for example, to
explain fundamental notions such as coherence and phenomena such as memory of dis-
course, for example, in the work of Philip Johnson-Laird, Walter Kintsch, and myself.
Beyond the scope of the grammar of words and sentences, long time the limited field
of linguistics, also larger schematic structures of discourse may be, and have been, ana-
lyzed in terms of frames, such as the canonical structures of everyday storytelling,
already proposed by Labov and Waletzky in a seminal paper of 1967. Indeed, such is
more generally the case for many other schematic structures of text and talk (sometimes
also called ‘superstructures’), such as the conventional organization of scholarly articles
(Title, Abstract, Introduction, etc) or interaction rituals, starting with Greetings and clos-
ing with Leave-taking in informal everyday conversation.
Also in the 1970s, it was Erving Goffman’s influential book Frame Analysis that
explicitly introduced the notion of ‘frame’ relating discourse, interaction, and cognition,
and hence connecting sociology and anthropology with linguistics, discourse, and con-
versation analysis.
In was in the 1980s and 1990s, within this multidisciplinary conceptual context, and
especially inspired by Goffman’s book, that sociologists Robert Benford and David
Snow in the new ‘cultural’ paradigm of research on social movements introduced the
notions of ‘frames’ and ‘framing’ in the study of many aspects of social movements, such
as ‘diagnostic’ frames as initial definitions of a social problem. Also as a critical reaction
2 Discourse Studies 00(0)

to earlier paradigms in social movement research, such as resource mobilization and

political process models, inspired by political and economic notions, their interest in
cultural phenomena such as discourse, (inter)action, meaning, understanding, and ideol-
ogy, required new analytical methods. The notions of ‘frame’ and ‘framing’ played that
role, soon applied in a vast number of empirical studies by many other scholars of social
movements.
At the same time, something very similar happened in communication research, for
instance in the work of William Gamson and Robert Entman, also in search of a method
for the qualitative study of news, such as the structures that define the specific focus or
importance of news events. Based on their work, also in this discipline the notion of
‘frame’ became very popular as a method for the study of news, sometimes closely
related to research on social movements, for instance in the work of Gamson himself.
It is not surprising that after half a century of research on frames in several disciplines
and applied to many related but different phenomena of the structures of text, talk, inter-
action, and cognition, it has become inevitable that such a broadly used notion loses
some of its analytical specificity. Thus, from the perspective of multidisciplinary dis-
course studies, increasingly interested in research on social movements, the question
arose what structures sociological applications of the notions of ‘frame’ and ‘framing’
were exactly analyzing.
To stimulate the debate, I wrote a critical review of the uses of the notion of ‘frame’
in social movement research and invited scholars in this field, as well as linguists who
had used this notion, to comment on my article or to summarize and illustrate their own
theory of frames.
From the outset, I need to apologize if my critical review of the uses of the notion of
frame suggests that all empirical studies using this notion in social movement research
are uninteresting. On the contrary, the phenomena studied in this research are relevant
and fascinating, and their sociological analyses illuminating. The point of my critical
review is merely that from the point of view of linguistics and discourse studies the uses
of the notion of frame in these studies could be methodologically refined in terms of
more specific structures and strategies of text and talk and their underlying cognitive
representations. Conversely, the important contribution of cultural social movement
research to linguistics, discourse analysis, and cognitive science is that the analytical
notions in the disciplines of language, discourse, and mind should also be used to study
socially and politically relevant problems, issues, and data, such as social protest and
inequality.
Though hardly a complete state of the art of the study of frames, this special issue is
another attempt to encourage cross-disciplinary cooperation between the social, cogni-
tive, and language sciences, especially also in the uses of analytical notions and the kind
of phenomena they study.
Teun A van Dijk
Centre of Discourse Studies, Barcelona, November 2022