Frame Analysis as a Discourse-Method: Framing climate change politics

Mat Hope mat.hope@bris.ac.uk

Paper delivered to the Post-Graduate Conference on Discourse Analysis

March 2010,
University of Bristol.

Abstract

Frame analysis is a discourse analysis method that is principally concerned with dissecting
how an issue is defined and problematised, and the effect that this has on the broader
discussion of the issue. Here, there is a brief discussion of the theoretical groundings of
frame analysis, before a model of the framing process is proffered. Next, there is some
discussion of frame analysis methods before the model is applied (through those methods)
to three key texts within the climate change politics literature. Ultimately, the analysis seeks
to uncover and better understand what climate change politics is in the context of the three
texts. The analysis undertaken here serves to illustrate the usefulness of frame analysis as a
research method within the broader discourse analysis schema. The paper concludes with a
brief summary of the results and some reflections on the success of using frame analysis in
this context, before considering some possible next steps for future research.
Introduction

Frame analysis is a discourse analysis method that is principally concerned with dissecting
how an issue is defined and problematised, and the effect that this has on the broader
discussion of the issue. This paper is in four parts. First, the theoretical foundations of
framing are discussed and frames as a concept are located more broadly within the
discourse schema. Next, the methods utilised within frame analysis are discussed before a
model of the framing process is formulated. Finally, the model is applied to the case of
climate change politics through a frame analysis of three significant academic texts within the
field. The paper concludes with some reflection on the usefulness of frame analysis in this
context, and suggests some next steps for research using frame analysis as a discourse
method.

I. Frames in discourse

The origins of frame analysis can be traced back to the so-called linguistic turn in social
science philosophy (coined by Bergmann 1953/1967, see also Rorty 1991). Of particular
relevance to the theoretical foundations of frame analysis are linguistic pragmatics feeding
into the work critical discourse analysis (CDA) scholars such as Nigel Fairclough and Ruth
Wodak, the work of sociologist Erving Goffman (1974;1981), and the (perhaps more
surprising) influence of artificial intelligence scholar, Marvin Minsky (1975; 1977).

Linguistic pragmatics conceptualises language as language-in-use (Blommaert 2005, 2);

that is, language that is recognised as having an effect beyond the boundaries of the text
itself (Burman and Parker 1993, Fowler 1996). Such insights into intertextual relations caught
the attention of scholars outside of linguistics who combined the linguistic methods with
theories of power and ideology to form what became the influential Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) school (see Blommaert 2005; Chilton and Schaffner 2002; Fairclough 1992,
1995, 2003; van Dijk 1993; van Leuwen 1993; Wodak 1989). CDA was particularly
influenced by the philosophy of Foucault (1972) (see Tamboukou 2008, Howarth 2000) and
Althusser (1971). For the CDA scholars, discourse is socially constitutive as well as socially
shaped (Fairclough and Wodak 1997, 258); it is a two-way causal relationship in which
discourse is shaped by society, but also has a significant effect on the shaping of that society.
Frame analysis shares many of the building blocks of CDA but returns somewhat to its
linguistic and textual roots. While it shares the same principles of the construction of
meaning, and retains a belief in the potential for discourse to affect action beyond the text
(Entman 1993, Gonos 1977), it retains its methodological roots in detailed linguistic analysis.

Within sociology, Erving Goffman coined the term frame analysis to describe the process of
deconstructing the individuals organisation of experience (1974, 11). Goffmans aim was
to

try to isolate some of the basic frameworks of understanding available in our society for making sense of
events and to analyse the special vulnerabilities to which these frames of reference are subject I
assume the definitions of a situation are built up in accordance with principles of organisation which
govern events at least social ones and our subjective involvement in them; frame is the word I use to
refer to such of these basic elements as I am able to identify. (1974, 10-11)

One of Goffmans main contributions was the idea of primary frameworks. He believed that
primary frameworks were the first point of the organisation of experience. He states, we
tend to perceive events in terms of primary frameworks, and the type of framework we
employ provides a way of describing the event to which it is applied (Goffman 1974, 24),
asserting that acts of daily living are understandable because of some primary framework (or
frameworks) that informs them (Goffman 1974, 26). He outlines two discrete primary
frameworks; the natural and the social that help people to make sense of what is
happening around them. Natural frameworks identify occurrences seen as undirected,
unoriented, unanimated, unguided, purely physical, while social primary frameworks
provide background understanding for events that incorporate the will, aim, and controlling
effort of intelligence, a live agency, the chief one being the human being (Goffman 1974,
22). As will be shown in detail later, primary frameworks form the basis of our most basic
understanding of phenomena.

A perhaps more surprising influence on frame analysis comes in the form of computer
scientist Marvin Minsky, who had a confessed interest in a theory of human thinking
(Minsky 1975, 215, cited in Bednarek 2004, 689). For Minsky,

[w]hen 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 We can think of a frame as a network of nodes
and relations./ Collections of related frames are linked together in frame systems. (1975, 212)
Minskys frame systems are arranged in a hierarchy, with each lower level adding more detail
to the phenomena, event, or scene. At the very highest level of the frame system there are
thematic superframes which provide information at the highest level of generality (Minsky
1975, 236), just below these are top-level frames that provide slightly more information but
remain stereotypes with default settings, and then come subframes which provide the
detail in the scene (Minsky 1975, 223).

Minsky makes the distinction between language (as a collection of words) and discourse
(as semantics and syntax with meaning), arguing that discourse requires multiple frames.
The frames being accessed by the individual go beyond simple visual cues to more abstract
consideration of the phenomena. Through a process of thought, the individual must
understand the setting, and the social context of the setting, operationalising multiple frame
systems to do so. As such, a discourse assembles a network of instantiated frames and
subframes (Minsky 1975, 237), and through an interpretation of the interrelatedness of the
frames and the individual may be able to fathom the discourse of their situation.

II. A model of the framing process

There is an inherent hierarchy within the framing process with each stage relating to an
increased level of detail of the discourse analysed. The model proffered here is influenced
strongly by the work of Goffman (1974), Minsky (1975) and Gerhards (1995). I argue that
through the operationalisation of primary frameworks, metaframes, and issue frames (in the
framing process) the texts contribute to the conceptualisation of an object. This object is
then translated into a problem through the operationalisation of a framing dimension
(Figure 1).
Figure 1: The framing process

Primary frameworks:
In this model, the primary frameworks are conceptualised with direct reference to Goffman
(1974). Primary frameworks have obvious parallels with Minskys (1975) superframes in
that they describe the most general and basic level of understanding. As outlined above, there
are two primary frameworks that help us to organise our understanding and locate our
experience; the natural and the social (Goffman 1974, 22).

Metaframes:
The term metaframes is taken from Dombos et al (2009). These are overarching frames of
a higher level of generality that can be operationalised as the normative aspects of issue
frames (Dombos et al 2009, 7). Various normative assertions take the form of framings,
which amalgamate to form the overarching metaframe; they are embedded in each other
(Nerlich and Clarke 1988, 83). As such, metaframes are by no-means discrete from one
another; multiple framings can contribute to a singular metaframe. As with all frames,
understanding one may be contingent on understanding others. Metaframes operate on a
relative scale with no absolute understanding.

Issue frames:
At the core of the framing process are issue frames. These frames provide a relatively
coherent story/reasoning in which issue specific prognostic elements responds to issue
specific diagnostic elements (Dombos et al 2009, 6). At this level, these characteristically
different textual features are translated into different propositional systems and assembled in
the interpreters working memory (Woong Rhee 1997, 31). Issue-frames are close to what
Minsky (1975) would describe as subframes with multiple pieces of information filling
terminals that contribute to the subframe whole (Minsky 1975, 223).

Framing dimension:
Once the frames have been established, it remains to be seen how the framing process -
which has by now created a more-coherent object - transform that object into a problem. This
element has been best conceptualised in scholarship which identifies the various ways in
which social action groups define then problematise their chosen issue in order to achieve
their political goals (see Benford and Snow 2000, Capek 1993, Gerhards 1995). To achieve
these goals, Gerhards asserts that they must first define the empirical phenomenon, fact or
occurrence as an issue, then label the phenomenon as a problem that the political system
should deal with (1995, 228). In doing this, they operationalise the first of Gerhards five
framing dimensions; translating the issue into a problem (Gerhards 1995, 227).

There remains one ambiguity which deserves some note; the relationship between the authors
(as agents) and frames (as an explanatory theoretical unit); in particular, the issue of
intention. Frames can be utilised intentionally: they can promote a positive or negative
image (Levin et al 1998), persuade (Johnston 1995), or be deliberately obtuse (Wilson 1990).
Much evidence of frames being used in these ways can be found in the study of media
discourse (see Boykoff 2008). However, here frames are understood as operationalised
rather than utilised. They are activated through the use of particular language, semantics,
and syntax (Nerlich and Clarke 1988). In this case, the authors are not intentionally framing
climate change or politics to deliberately affect the construction of climate change
politics. Instead, they discuss the (relatively neutral) concepts within the boundaries of their
own normative ideals and with reference to their selected empirical evidence thus
operationalising the frames which determine the various meanings of climate change
politics.

III. Frame analysis methods

Here, a micro-discourse analysis of three texts is undertaken (see Alvesson and Karreman
2000, Okada 2006, Johnston 1995); Ulrich Becks (2009) World at Risk, Anthony Giddens
(2009) Climate Change Politics, and Steve Vanderheidens (2008) Atmospheric Justice.
Micro-discourse analysis traces its roots backs to linguistics and allows for detailed
analysis of the semantics and syntax of the texts (Johnston 1995, 220). The project is
conducted in two stages. First, a qualitative content analysis ascertains the broad content of
each text providing a database from which the passages that are most relevant to the question
can be selected for more detailed analysis. This first reading allows the text to be seen as a
holistic construct (Johnston 1995, 221). This is important as [t]he text is the central
empirical referent in micro-discourse analysis, and its integrity should be maintained
(Johnston 1995, 221-222). An understanding of the texts as a whole is necessary to place the
micro-analysis into context (and avoid the selected passages being viewed in isolation, thus
potentially affecting the meaning of the content) (Titscher et al 2000).

Next, passages are selected which are most relevant to the research question and placed in
matrices. This technique is borrowed and adapted from the signature matrices of Creed et al
(2002). The analysis is then extrapolated and the argument developed to show how climate
change politics is framed at each stage of the framing process. Micro-discourse analysis is
used to study the semantics and syntax of a selection of passages extracted, but not
disconnected from, the texts as wholes. This, combined with analysis of the operationalisation
of Gerhards first framing dimension (problematisation), allows the development of a more
holistic view of what climate change politics is.

The study is open to many of the criticisms levied at most qualitative and discourse
analysis; in particular those of subjectivity (lack scientific rigour) and empirical (real world)
applicability. The study has tried to control for both of these. Firstly, the problem of
subjectivity is dealt with through the theoretical grounding that is, it is perfectly acceptable
for the study to be seen as subjective as there is no such thing as objective. Beyond this
though, the study tries to be as transparent as possible (the matrices are all publicly available
and all excerpts are cited and sourced). The hope is that by increasing the transparency,
readers can trace the basic (albeit subjective) logic of the analysis and, if not, the data is
available to them to dispute the studys findings. Secondly, the applicability of the study
beyond the three texts comes from the method, not the findings themselves. Given that this is
a somewhat experimental study, the most significant insight comes in the form of the process
it utilises rather than the conclusions it draws. Needless to say, there is hopefully some value
in the studys findings as well.
IV: Framing climate change politics

By applying the model to three texts, insight can be gained into the affects of framing in these
cases.

Hybrid primary frameworks in Giddens, Vanderheiden and Beck:

In order to determine which primary frameworks are being employed in the three texts, a
definition matrix was constructed and a textual micro-analysis undertaken. Passages were
selected where the authors were talking explicitly about climate change in a definitional or
descriptive sense; either as an issue, a problem, or an event. The semantics and syntax are
then analysed in order to determine whether the issue is framed with a natural primary
framework, or a social primary framework. It became apparent that none of the authors are
employing a strictly natural or social primary framework. Further to this, the selected
passages relied on an understanding of both the natural and the social frameworks. Climate
change within the context of the three texts is not understandable unless there is the constant
application of both the social and natural frameworks together, simultaneously, constantly,
and intertwined. If the social aspect of climate change was removed, then what would
remain would essentially be the weather (which is not climate change). If the natural
aspect of climate change was removed, then what would remain is a discussion of the
distribution of a common good (which is to overlook much of what constitutes climate
change also). In the passages, the social and the natural primary frameworks were not
being operationalised simultaneously but were contingent on one another; climate change
could not be understood in any terms other than a hybrid primary framework.

Neoliberal and rationalist metaframes in Giddens and Vanderheiden:

Giddens and Vanderheiden both invoke neoliberal1 and rationalist metaframes when
outlining the political problems arising from the climate change issue. The neoliberal frame
emerges through assertions of the primacy of the nation-state in an anarchical international
arena. This is particularly evident in discussion of the Kyoto Protocol but also in conceptual
discussions of fairness and justice in which it is presumed the state will be actor who
administrates any new regime.

The rationalist metaframe is operationalised when the authors discuss action on an

individual level. Giddens invokes a characterisation of the individual as self-interested and
1
neoliberal is used here in what could be described as an international relations sense (rather than a
economic, or other, sense)
inherently unmotivated when he highlights the human tendency to reject constraints on
lifestyle as there is life to be lived (2009, 2), while Vanderheiden conceptualises individuals
as egoists. For both, involved actors are rational beings that pursue self-interested ends in
both the private (personal) arena as anti-ecological consumers, and at the national/
international arena while acting as State officials.

An institutional-constructivist metaframe in Beck:

In contrast to Giddens and Vanderheiden, Beck operationalises an institutional-constructivist
metaframe which stresses the discursive processes that lead to the construction of climate
change, and emphasises the inadequacy of state-based approaches to discussing social
problems and international politics with climate change being an exemplar amalgamation
(for him) of both. The institutional-constructivist metaframe is composed of two framings: an
institutional framing, and a constructivist framing.

The constructivist framing outlines how [n]ature and the destruction of nature are
institutionally produced and defined (in conflicts between lay people and experts) within
industrially internalized nature (2009, 90). Within this constructive environment, discourse
coalitions take center stage (2009, 89); they are discursive landscape architects: they
create, design, and alter cognitive maps, narrative frameworks, and taboos (2009, 89).
The institutionalist framing is more concerned with how constructions of reality can be
distinguished as to whether they are more real depending on [t]he closer they are to and in
institutions (2009, 89).

The effect of this institutionalist-constructivist metaframe is that a politics of climate change

emerges which is less concerned with addressing the problem, and more concerned with
defining that problem. There is not only a politics of climate change, but climate change itself
is inherently political as a concept in so much as it is constructed, and these definitions
compete for proximity to institutions within the social realm.

Selected issue frames:

Ecological modernisation and the ensuring state in Giddens

Giddens metaframes encase a number of issue frames. The most significant is ecological
modernisation. Ecological modernisation is a theory of development that is primarily
concerned with greening modernisation along the current dominant lines of western
economic development. In this case, ecological modernisation derives its normative value
from Giddens neoliberal and rationalist metaframes since its policies require state-leadership
of economistic and rational individuals. The state has a natural role to play in this by setting
targets and incentives. Under the same issue-frame, Giddens also introduces the concept of
the ensuring state which is responsible for monitoring public goals and for trying to make
sure they are realized in a visible and acceptable fashion (2009, 69).

A rights-based approach to emissions reductions in Vanderheiden

The continued failure of the rationalist parties within the neoliberal international environ to
commit to outright reductions in GHG emissions leads Vanderheiden to recommend the
entrenchment of three types of rights within a climate regime; emissions rights,
environmental rights, and development rights. While Vanderheiden operationalises similar
metaframes to Giddens, his issue frames at first appear markedly different. While Giddens is
concerned with market mechanisms and technological innovation, Vanderheiden is much
more concerned with fair economic design thorough entrenched rights. There are, however,
marked similarities also. Both deal with issues concerning nation-states, inherently self-
interested individuals, and the relationship between economic development and emissions
reductions. As such, the metaframes do not dictate what issue frames will be discussed, but
the way that the issue frames are discussed. The metaframes act as a common reference point
for both texts in this case. While the issue frames and approaches are different, the problem
(confronted by, through, and with climate change politics) remains essentially the same.

Cosmopolitan Political Realism and social (r)evolution in Beck

Having led us through the (de)construction of climate change as a social problem, Beck turns
his attention to the likely transformations necessary in meeting climate change as a
sociological challenge. Beck outlines five principles of a cosmopolitan political realism that
must be realised in the face of the impending climate change threat. They can be summarised
as:

1. No nation can master its problems alone

2. Global problems can only be addressed through cosmopolitan solutions
3. International organisations are institutions in their own right; they are not just the
aggregation of nation-state interests
4. National sovereignty is counterproductive at the international level
5. Unilateralism in uneconomic; cosmopolitanism is the most economical model
(Beck 2009, 207-209)
These transformations, Beck asserts, lead to a global subpolitics that is based on
decoupling politics from government in a cosmopolitan moment which sees the social
institutions of the world continuing their evolution into the second modernity (Beck 2009,
95). At this stage, the cosmopolitan world risk society is more than the aggregation of the
actions of national governments but the sum of the scopes for action of the national
governmental institutions and bureaucracies plus the deliberate use of the cooperative
capacities of transnational networks (Beck 2009, 103-104).

Cosmopolitan political realism and its global subpolitics are derived out of Becks
institutional-constructivist metaframes since the logic of the institutionalist framing leads to
the deconstruction of old institutions based around the nation-state as new threats (such as
climate change) become more proximate to society itself. This deconstruction in turn leads to
a reconstruction of the problem as cosmopolitan which highlights the deficiencies and
inefficiencies of the dominant neoliberal free-market economic model of the first modernity.

While Giddens and Vanderheidens metaframes lead them to issues concerning economic
restructuring and the nation-state/international level, Becks institutionalist-constructivist
metaframe naturally leads to discussions of a more radical nature. While Giddens and
Vanderheiden trouble themselves with solutions to a well-defined problem, Beck instead
dedicates attention to the evolution of the problem itself and the institutional restructuring
that will accompany it. As such, climate change is framed by Beck as with a considerably
different politics that has markedly different consequences to the climate change politics
apparent in Giddens and Vanderheidens texts.

An international framing dimension:

The final part of the framing process is the operationalising Gerhards first framing dimension
(1995, 226). The framings outlined in the previously represent the definition of climate
change politics as an object that is, they have identified the actors, policies, and processes
that are integral within climate change politics but it is yet to be outlined what dimension
this object operates in. In each text, climate change politics is (on way or another)
operationalised as an object within international politics. In each, the globalism of the
problem is asserted leading to discussion of international (or in Becks case, cosmopolitan)
responses.

Conclusion
The frame analysis undertaken here traces the development of climate change politics
through three texts. What emerges is a map of the construction of three related but different
visions of climate change politics. Figure 2 (below) summarises each stage of the
constructions as outlined by the frame analysis.

Figure 2: Framing climate change politics

All three texts operationalise a hybrid primary framework, calling into question the
usefulness of Goffmans (1974) original conceptualisation in this case. Next Giddens and
Vanderheiden apply neoliberal and rationalist metaframes. This leads them both to address
issues of economic development and incentives for action; Giddens through market
incentives and ecological modernisation, and Vanderheiden through entrenched
environmental rights. Beck operationalises a wholly different metaframe; that of institutional-
constructivism. This leads to him discussing the more radical issues of institutional
breakdown and reconstruction in a system defined by cosmopolitan political realism and its
related global subpolitics.

Considerations for future research:

The obvious next stage is to take frames off the page. This study has shown the potential for
tracing the evolution of an idea or problem through and across three different texts. With
some development, the model of the framing process formulated and applied here could also
be applied to discourse-as-action as well as discourse-as-language. I will go on to apply this
method (with some refinement) to Congressional climate change debates in the hope of
uncovering answers to a similar question as the one posed here; how does the US Congress
frame climate change? In doing this I again follow Minsky, for whom

[t]he primary purpose in problem solving should be better to understand the problem space not - as is
usually assumed to find solutions; once the space is adequately understood, solutions to problems will
more easily be found. (1975, 259)

By tracing Congressional activity related to climate change, a better understanding of their

politics of climate change can emerge. Once the politics of climate change is better
understood in context, then solutions or the process by which to design solutions can be
better formulated, debated, and applied.
References

Althusser, L. 1971. Lenin and philosophy and other essays. New York (US): Monthly Review
Press

Alvesson, M., and Karreman, D. 2000. Varieties of Discourse: On the study of Organizations
through Discourse Analysis. Human Relations, Vol. 53, No. 9, pp. 1125-1149

Beck, U. 2009, World at Risk. Cambridge: Polity Press

Bednarek, M.A. 2005. Frames re-visited the coherence-inducing function of frames.

Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 37, pp. 685-705

Benford, R.D. and Snow, D.A. 2000. Framing Processes and Social Movements: An
Overview and Assessment. In Annual Review of Sociology Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 611-639

Bergmann, G. 1953/1967. Logical Positivism, Language, and the reconstruction of

metaphysics. Reprinted in Rorty, R (ed.) The Linguistic Turn: Recent essays in
Philosophical method. 1967.Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: CUP

Boykoff, M.T. The cultural politics of climate change discourse in UK tabloids. Political
Geography, Vol. 27, pp. 549-569

Burman, E., and Parker, I. 1993. Introduction discourse analysis: the turn to text. In
Burman, E., and Parker, I (Eds.) Discourse Analytic Research. London: Routledge

Capek, S.M. 1993. The Environmental Justice Frame: A Conceptual Discussion and
Application. Social Problems. vol. 40, no. 1, pp.5-24

Chilton, P., and Schaffner, C (Eds.). 2002. Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to
Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Creed, W.E.D., Langstraat, J.A., and Scully, M.A. 2002. A Picture of the Frame: Frame
Analysis as Technique and as Politics. Organisational Research Methods. Vol. 5. No. 34. pp.
34-55
Dombos, T. et al. 2009. Critical Frame Analysis: A comparative methodology for the
QUING project. Paper delivered to the ECPR First European Conference on Politics and
Gender, January 21-23, Queens University, Belfast

Entman, R.E. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of

Communiation, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.51-58

Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity

Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: the critical study of language. London:
Longman

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse. London: Routledge

Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge

Fowler, R. 1996. On critical linguistics. In Caldas-Coulthard, C., and Coulthard, M (Eds.)

Texts and Practices. London: Routledge

Gerhards, J. 1995. Framing dimensions and framing strategies: contrasting ideal and real-
type frames. Social Science Information, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 225-248

Giddens, A. 2009. The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Polity Press

Goffman, E. 1975. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge,

MA (US): Harvard University Press

Gonos, G. 1977. Situation versus Frame: The interactionist and the structuralist
analyses of everyday life. In American Sociological Review, Vol. 42, pp. 854-867

Howarth, D. 2000. Discourse. Buckingham: OUP

Johnston, H. 1995. A Methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse to Cognitive

Schema. In H. Johnston and B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social Movements and Culture.
Abingdon: Routledge

Levin, I.P., Schneider, S.L., and Gaeth, G.J. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A
typology and critical analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes. Vol. 76, No. 2, pp.149-188
Minsky, M. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P.H. (Ed.), The
Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw Hill

Nerlich, B. and Clarke, D.D. 1988. A dynamic model of semantic change. In Journal of
Literary Semantics Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 7390

Okada, M. 2006. Speakers sex or discourse activities? A micro-discourse-based account of

usage of nonparticle questions in Japanese. Language in Society, Vol. 35, pp.341-365

Rorty, R. 1991. Essays on Heidegger and Others. Cambridge: CUP

Tamboukou, M. 2008. A Foucauldian Approach to Narratives. In Andrews, M., Squires, C.,

and Tamboukou, M. (Eds.) Doing Narrative Research. London: Sage

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R., and Vetter, E. 2000. Methods of Text and Discourse
Analysis. London: Sage

Vanderheiden, S. 2008. Atmospheric Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Van Dijk, T. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society, Vol. 4,
pp. 249-283

van Leuwen, T. 1993. Genre and Field in Critical Discourse Analysis: A synopsis.
Discourse and Society, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 193-223

Wilson, J. 1990. Politically Speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford:
Blackwell

Wodak, R. 1989. Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amserdam:
John Benjamins

Woong Rhee, J. 1997. Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social
cognitive account of framing effects. In Journal of Communication, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 26-48