SEMANTIC FRAME ANALYSIS

Semantic frame analysis refers to an analytical approach that focusses on patterns of language use with respect to mental structures (frames) which are evoked by words, phrases and grammatical constructions. Based on Frame Semantics, a theory accentuating the continuities between language and experience, the approach assumes that one can only fully understand the meaning of a word when considering its specific context of use. The focus is on background knowledge (necessary for understanding) that is organized in frames (slot-filler structures) that describe entities, situations or events. Frames guide comprehension and verbalization processes. The founder of the linguistic frame theory is Charles J. Fillmore.

Semantic frame analyses are considered a central component of corpus linguistic discourse analysis. There are currently two main approaches to frames. The first one considers verbs as frame-evoking elements, the second focuses on nouns. Verb frames (Berkeley FrameNet-Project) describe more or less dynamic situations or scripts where core and non-core frame-elements (semantic roles) step onto the scene as they are instantiated by concrete fillers. The verbs ‘to buy’ or ‘to purchase’, for instance, evoke a frame that describes a basic commercial transaction. Depending on the communicative situation, frame-elements like ‘Buyer’, ‘Goods’, ‘Money’ or ‘Place’ might be filled (instantiated): In the sentence “The kid buys a book”, for example, only two frame-elements are instantiated: ‘Buyer’ (kid) and ‘Goods’ (book). However, the reader, listener or interlocutor knows that one needs ‘Money’ in order to buy something and that the transaction takes place at a specific ‘Place’. In this example, ‘Buyer’ and ‘Goods’ are in the foreground; further frame-elements are not verbalized and specified. This is how the event (transaction) is framed.

The second frame approach focuses on nouns as frame-evoking elements for ‘concept frames’. It is inspired by the psychologically informed frame theory developed by Barsalou (1992), where slots (frame-elements) correspond to attributes describing entities (e. g. the color of a fruit) and fillers to specific values (e. g. red). In this regard, Minsky’s (1977) model of cognitive frames has also been very influential.

Within the scope of corpus linguistic approaches to political discourse, a quantitative motivated framing analysis can help to reveal hegemonic strategies and to uncover ideological manipulation. This involves looking at which frames and which frame elements are in the foreground in certain discursive contexts and which values instantiate dominant frame elements.

Baker, Collin F. 2009. “La sémantique des cadres et le projet FRAMENET : une approche différente de la notion de ‘valence’.” Langages Vol. 176 No. 4, 32-49.

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1992. “Frames, concepts and conceptual fields.” In Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, edited by Lehrer, Adrienne / F. Kittay, Eva. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 21-71.

Busby, Ethan C. / Gubler, Joshua R. / Hawkins, Kirk A. 2018. “Framing and Blame Attribution in Populist Rhetoric.”,  The Journal of Politics Vol. 81 No. 2, 616-630.

Busse, Dietrich. 2012. Frame-Semantik: Ein Kompendium. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

Croft, William / Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dias, Tayrine / von Bülow, Marisa / Gobbi, Danniel. 2021. “Populist Framing Mechanisms and the Rise of Right-wing Activizm in Brazil.” Latin American Politics and Society Vol. 63 No. 3. 69-92.

Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication Vol. 43 No. 4. 51-58.

Fillmore, Charles, Christopher R. Johnson, Miriam R. L. Petruck. 2003. “Background to Framenet.” International Journal of Lexicography Vol. 16.3. 235-250.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. “Frames and the semantics of understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica 6. 222-254.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. “Frame Semantics.” In Linguistics in the morning calm, edited by The Linguistics Society of Korea. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company. 111-137.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. “The need for a frame semantics in linguistics.” Statistical Methods in Linguistics Vol. 12 (edited by Hans Karlgren). 5-29.

Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. “An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning.” In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, edited by Cogen, Cathy / Thompson, Henry / Thurgood, Graham / Whistler, Kenneth / Wright, James. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society. 123-131.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hameleers, Michael / Schmuck, Desirée / Schulz, Anne / Wirz, Dominique Stefanie / Matthes, Jörg / Bos, Linda / Corbu, Nicoleta. 2021. “The Effects of Populist Identity Framing on Populist Attitudes Across Europe.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 33 No. 3. 491-510.

Löbner, Sebastian. 2014. “Evidence for Frames for Human Language.” In Frames and Concept Types, edited by Gamerschlag, Thomas / Gerland, Doris / Osswald, Rainer / Petersen, Wiebke. Cham: Springer. 23-67

Minsky, Marvin. 1977. “Frame-system theory.” In Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science, edited by Johnson-Laird, Philip / Wason, Peter C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 355-376.

Minsky, Marvin. 1975. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” In The Psychology of Computer Vision, edited by Patrick H. Winston. New York: McGraw-Hill. 211-277.

Ziem, Alexander. 2014. Frames of Understanding in Text and Discourse: Theoretical Foundations and Descriptive Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.