Measuring Collective Action Frames: a Linguistic Approach to Frame Analysis

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 www.elsevier.com/locate/poetic

Measuring collective action frames: A linguistic approach to frame analysis Stefania Vicari DEIS, University of Sassari, Palazzo Zirolia, Piazza Universita` 11, 07100 Sassari, Italy

Available online 19 August 2010

Abstract By focusing on the interpretative aspect of mobilization, the framing perspective has provided signiﬁcant insights to the social movements literature. Despite the growing number of studies focused on collective action frames, and master frames, the choice of how to investigate frame dynamics remains controversial. This paper explores the question of how researchers could empirically depict and measure framing tasks and frame components by focusing on the linguistic properties of social movement texts. It looks at semantic grammars as a possible way to craft linguistically based coding schemes able to extract collective action frames, as organic systems of meaning, from social movement discourses. It is shown how a ‘‘frame semantic grammar’’ could provide a reliable method ofinvestigation to go from texts to frames, across case studies and research questions. # 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Over the past few decades, meanings and symbols of collective action have become a primary subject of sociological investigation. Growing out of the symbolic interactionist and constructionist traditions, frame analysis has provided a new conceptual framework to explore interpretative collective processes led by social movement actors. The central idea is that grievances are not automatic and self-sustained motives of protest but rather the product of the ongoing interaction among social actors. This focus on the interpretative aspect of mobilization has been highlighted within analyses of cognitive1 and representational schemes of protest. While exploring dynamics of signiﬁcation, frame analyses have provided interesting insights into social movements’ self-interpretation, society framing, and strategic tactics. Although scholars have been ﬂeshing out processes of meaning construction, the question of how to investigate and compare social movements’ framing is still open (Benford, 1997: 411–414; Benford and Snow, 2000: 633; Gerhards and Rucht, 1992: 573).

E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. 1 I use the term ‘‘cognitive schemes’’ drawing upon Goffman’s (1974) original elaboration of frame analysis as a methodological tool able to investigate the way people think about things.

To advance rigor and comparability across cases, any frame methodology should allow the researcher to relate systematically all frame concepts. In this article, I propose a linguistically based approach to textual analysis that aims to capture the multilayered relations among frames, concepts, and words. This approach looks at social movements’ framing by focusing on linguistic structures of texts. First, I will describe the theoretical context characterizing the development of frame analysis and trace the relations among framing tasks and frame concepts. Next, by focusing on the framing potency of linguistic structures, I will address the challenge to deﬁne a methodological strategy able to work across case studies and research questions. In particular, I will apply Franzosi’s (2010) use of story grammar coding schemes to the investigation of social movements’ collective action frames. Finally, by using PC-ACE software program, I will develop a linguistically based semantic grammar to analyze a small sample of Declarations of Intents from the World Social Forum coalition2. This will function to show how a ‘‘frame semantic grammar’’ could add to the analysis of social movements’ framing.

1. Theoretical background

1.1. Frame concepts

Concepts like beliefs, values, and ideology have experienced a difficult path within social scientific investigations of mobilization. Prior to the 1970s, they were mainly discussed in descriptive terms with no further conceptual elaboration. Throughout the following decade, such concepts lost even more ground with the emergence of resource mobilization approaches, which dismissed them as largely irrelevant to the development of social movements (McCarthy and Zald, 1977).3 In fact, both psychofunctional and resource mobilization theories of the 1970s and early-1980s skimmed over framing issues (Snow et al., 1986: 465). To the extent that grievances were considered at all, analyses suffered from two main problems: on the one hand, old grievance perspectives assumed a mechanical linkage between grievances and movement mobilization, neglecting the importance of individual interpretative processes. On the other hand, resource mobilization approaches presupposed the constancy of grievances in any contentious context with costs and benefits playing as the most influential factors (McCarthy and Zald, 1977: 1215). The production of meanings and ideas within mobilization and countermobilization was under-studied until the emergence of frame approaches in the mid-1980s. Social movements theorists actually turned to cognitive frames when the sociological work began to bridge the apparent gap between culture and social structures (Mohr, 1998: 347). A new priority became that of folding together cultural meaning and social structures ‘‘as primary elements within the same research design’’ (Mohr, 1998: 348). Frame theory, drawing upon Goffman’s (1974) early work, began by focusing exactly on what was left out by previous approaches in social movements research: ‘‘meaning work’’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 613), or the ‘‘politics of signification’’ (Hall, 1982). Goffman’s work borrowed

2 The World Social Forum is a transnational coalition of local protest groups. It was born in 2001 with the first World Social Forum yearly event held at Porto Alegre, Brazil. 3 Concerning the inclusion of deprivation and grievances in the study of social contention, McCarthy and Zald (1977: 1215) state: ‘‘We want to move from a strong assumption about the centrality of deprivation and grievances to a weak one, which makes them a component, indeed, sometimes a secondary component in the generation of social movements.’’ 506 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 the concept of frame as a mental construct from Bateson’s (1972) early studies on human cognitive behavior in interactive situations, transposing anthropological findings into sociological theory. Bateson’s research showed that individuals always apply interpretative frameworks to understand others’ actions and words. Frames help internalize past experience and guide future action/reaction to upcoming events. From a framing perspective, social movements are dynamic collective actors able to engage in the production of meanings and interpretations to be shared with and contrasted by constituents, antagonists, bystanders and outsiders. Social movements’ framing processes are referred to as ‘‘collective action frames:’’ ‘‘action-oriented sets of beliefs and meanings that inspire and legitimate the activities and campaigns of a social movement organization’’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 614). Collective action frames seek to provide a comprehensive understanding of why and how social action should occur, delivering a common platform for processes of meaning construction and signification. Some collective action frames function as comprehensive structures, influencing orientations and activities of different movements. These are generally referred to as ‘‘master frames’’—in contrast to movement-specific collective action frames that might actually derive from them.4 Relying upon Wilson’s (1973) segmentation of ideology into three primary aspects, Snow and Benford (1988: 200) define collective action frames as holding three core tasks: diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational. The diagnostic task involves the identification of one or more problems and the attribution of blame and causality (Snow and Benford, 1988: 200). The prognostic task provides the solution to the problem, the strategic plan or the advocated collective action to change the situation (Benford and Snow, 2000: 616). Finally, the motivational task provides the real call for action or the rationale for engaging in ameliorative collective action. It involves the formulation of a shared vocabulary of action also made of claims, mottos, and logos and can grow out of the elaboration of both diagnostic (Gerhards and Rucht, 1992: 583) and prognostic (Benford, 1993b: 208) framing. These three core tasks construct a movement’s internal and external mobilizing discourse, providing participants and publics with elements for social identification and identity sharing. Addressing frame issues, Gamson (1992b) also provides a series of primary conceptual elements. He distinguishes among three specific frame components shaping collective action frames: injustice, agency, and identity. The injustice component has a highly moral connotation: it ‘‘requires a consciousness of motivated human actors who carry some of the onus for bringing about harm and sufferings’’ (Gamson, 1992b: 7). Drawing upon Zajonc (1980), Gamson (1992b) defines the injustice component as tending towards a ‘‘hot cognition’’ able to strike people’s interpretative frames. The agency component refers to the possibility to alter problematic conditions. It denies the immutability of the societal order and supports the efficacy of social action. Through the agency component, collective action frames ‘‘empower people by defining them as potential agents of their own history’’ (Gamson, 1992b: 7). The identity component of collective action frames provides the sort of self-recognition any social movement raises for both internal and external purposes. It defines an ‘‘us’’ in opposition to some adversarial ‘‘them’’ with different values and interests (Gamson, 1992b: 7–8).

4 Benford and Snow (2000: 619) identify a handful of consistent master frames: rights frames, choice frames, injustice frames, environmental injustice frames, culturally pluralist frames, sexual terrorist frames, oppositional frames, hegemonic frames and the ‘‘return to Democracy’’ frames. S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 507

Table 1 Central frame concepts. Element Value Meaning Authors Framing task Diagnostic Problem identiﬁcation Snow and Benford (1988, 2000) Prognostic Proposed solution Motivational Call for action Frame component Injustice Moral indignation Gamson (1992a,b) Agency Potential of action Identity Self-recognition

Taken together, the primary concepts developed within framing theory can be summarized as shown in Table 1. The frame literature does not directly investigate the relations between framing tasks and frame components. And yet, I suggest we can draw a set of connections between the two. Let us see how. The diagnostic task defines problems and faults; it attributes the causes of negative societal issues to specific actors. Hence, diagnostic elements define blames and responsibilities of unjust actions. Benford and Snow (2000: 615) suggest that diagnostic framing has to do with the articulation of Gamson’s (1992a,b) ‘‘injustice frames’’ or ‘‘injustice components.’’ There is, in fact, a direct link between diagnosis, as a framing function, and injustice, as a frame component. Elements playing a diagnostic task seem to generate the specific dimension of injustice. Benford and Snow (2000: 616) also underline how ‘‘adversarial framing’’ (Gamson, 1992b) is often devised by social movement activists to define diagnostically what is just and what is unjust. Prognosis, the second framing task, involves the elaboration of a ‘‘plan of action,’’ a set of possible solutions to societal problems. This requires the proposition of future ameliorative actions able to change societal conditions. As Benford and Snow (2000: 617) put it: ‘‘prognostic framing activity typically includes refutation of the logic or efficacy of solutions advocated by opponents as well as a rationale for its own remedies.’’ Indeed, the prognostic task conveys a sense of agency, the possibility for an action to occur and confute a normalized situation. While describing the agency component of collective action frames, Gamson (1992b: 59) underlines exactly how this frame dimension tends to overcome the sense of ‘‘collective helplessness’’ that might be perceived by a general public. Thus, those prognostic elements framing possible future actions are very likely to generate an agency dimension within a collective action frame. However, prognostic elements might express more than possible future actions. Prognosis does not only imply the possibility for an ameliorative action to occur, it also conveys the intention of an actor to actually engage in that ameliorative action. In other words, prognostic elements do not only express agency, they also convey identity elements. While the identity component may be signaled by certain prognostic elements – those expressing an actor’s intention to engage in action – it can also be delivered by motivational elements. Motivational framing provides the rationale for engaging in prognostic action. This framing task must build salient elements to raise a movement’s participation levels (Snow and Benford, 2000: 617). Several factors might come into play in this process: a movement’s history, its credibility, and the resonance of its claims to the public. And these factors cannot but build part of a social movement’s identity. Hence, I suggest that identity, as a frame component, can be considered as a multilayered dimension generated by both prognostic and motivational elements. On the basis of these theoretical assumptions, framing tasks and frame components could then be related as shown in Table 2. 508 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

Table 2 Relations between framing tasks and frame components.

Indeed, dealing with mutually exclusive framing categories involves a slight simplification of cognitive processes: the exclusion of fuzzy categories might affect partially the results of a frame study. However, by tracing the key theoretical links between the primary frame concepts, one can first look at textual elements as holding specific cognitive functions (i.e., framing tasks), and then chart these cognitive functions as delivering the relevant cognitive dimensions (i.e., frame components).

1.2. Frame methodology

While we can refer to an extensive conceptual elaboration of frame dynamics, we still lack a strong methodological terrain. The long series of empirical studies that flourished from the 1990s onwards has mostly contributed to the explanation of frame concepts and processes (Benford, 1997: 411). The central foci of investigation comprise frames’ tasks and components, their characteristic and variable features (Benford and Snow, 2000: 614–622; Snow and Benford, 1992: 136–141), and master frame generative processes (Benford and Snow, 2000: 622–627; Snow et al., 1986: 467–476). The methods adopted in this first bulk of empirical analyses range from historical case studies (D’Anjou, 1996; Mooney and Hunt, 1996; Noonan, 1995; Snow and Byrd, 2007; Williams, 1995) to event-history analysis (McCammon, 2001), on to questionnaire surveys (Erwin, 1993), interviews (Benford, 1993a,b; Capek, 1993; Cress and Snow, 2000; Griffin, 1992; Jenness, 1995; Zuo and Benford, 1995), participant observations (Benford, 1993a,b; Gamson, 1992b; Zuo and Benford, 1995), focus groups (Gamson, 1992b), textual analyses of different sorts (Benford, 1993a,b; Berbrier, 1998; Cadena-Roa, 2002; Cress and Snow, 2000; Diani, 1996; Ellingson, 1995; Ferree, 2003; Gerhards and Rucht, 1992; McCaffrey and Keys, 2000; Rohlinger, 2002; Rothman and Oliver, 1999; Zuo and Benford, 1995), thematic analyses of newspaper articles and official statements (Babb, 1996; Coy and Woehrle, 1996; Entman and Rojecki, 1993; Jenness, 1995; McCarthy, 1994), quantitative analyses of newspaper articles or archival resources (Entman and Rojecki, 1993; McCammon et al., 2007; Snow et al., 2007), graphic representations of argumentative structures (Gerhards and Rucht, 1992), and rhetoric analyses (Williams, 1995). While addressing very similar research questions – focused on frame dynamics – several authors have therefore devised the most different methodological tools (for an additional elaboration of the empirical studies here mentioned, please see the Appendix A in the online supplement). Gerhards and Rucht (1992: 573) wrote: ‘‘Although the importance of framing to mobilization processes has been emphasized time and again in recent years...there are no empirical analyses of frames and framing processes.’’ Drawing attention to the lack of empirical studies involving frame analyses, Gerhards and Rucht actually proposed one of the first methodological discussions concerning frames and meaning construction in the sphere of collective action. Why was frame analysis controversial on pragmatic grounds? S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 509

Frame analysis investigates processes of signification: it looks at the way meaning becomes functional to mobilize collective action. The scheme of signification that frames belong to can be understood as the ‘‘mental structure’’ (Johnston, 1995: 219) that social movement participants adopt to get involved in collective action. Frames, as ‘‘schemata of interpretation’’ (Goffman, 1974: 21), can be uncovered, reconstructed and made explicit through the analysis of their textual form. A primary challenge to using empirical methods to approach frames derives from the fact that while the purpose of the investigation is to uncover meaning, the texts themselves become the object of study: frame analysis investigates the actual representation of the ‘‘system of meaning’’ (Gerhards and Rucht, 1992: 573) it means to explore. Steinberg (1998: 845) critically defines this process of investigation as a ‘‘referential perspective on discourse’’ where ‘‘the discourse used in framing is taken to be a generally straightforward bearer of meanings.’’ Johnston (1995: 219) similarly underlines how only an intensive ‘‘discursive analysis,’’ ‘‘from the bottom up, from the text to the frame’’ can reconstruct framing processes. In this sense, the analyst must activate an ongoing empirical dialogue between linguistic behavior and mental processes. And yet, how does she/he turn a text into a hierarchically constructed map of concepts? Or, how does she/he translate verbal content into cognitive images? Benford (1997: 411–412) critically points out: ‘‘One obvious reason for this [methodological] lacuna is that, for a variety of practical and substantive reasons, most movement analyses are based on case studies.’’ Seven years later, when Snow distinguishes among five different clusters of framing scholarship, his fourth category – ‘‘methodological issues and techniques’’ – still refers to a scanty literature (Snow, 2004: 386). The question is then still open: is it possible to devise a methodological approach to social movement framing independent from but applicable to case-study analyses? Drawing upon Steinberg’s (1998) and Johnston’s (1995, 2002) methodological insights, in the following sections, I suggest one of the possible ways to draw the bridge between discursive elements and framing features.

2. From texts to frames: how linguistics can help

If frames are represented by textual content, the search for a tool to conduct frame studies should lead us towards textual analysis strategies. Indeed, the process of meaning measurement through textual analysis has been a popular topic within the sociological field for the past 20 years now (e.g., Carley, 1993, 1994; Franzosi and Mohr, 1997; Mohr, 1998). In particular, sociologists have stressed the importance of devising relevant tools for the formal analysis of meaning, the final aim being the unpacking of culture and social structure (Mohr, 1998: 346). Addressing the field of social contention, White and Godart (2007: 10) interestingly state: ‘‘Like identities, stories and rhetorics can be mobilized to achieve some goal...Sets of stories highlight the universality of stories and enable the deployment of strategies. Narratives are used in the process of mobilization, as a tool to convince allies and thwart adverse control attempts.’’ So, how can analysts map the way stories mobilize individuals through diagnostic, prognostic and motivational framing? Within the frame analysis literature, Johnston (2002) bolsters quantitative methods—sample surveys, content analyses, and story (i.e., semantic) grammar analyses. In particular, as he puts it: ‘‘A story grammar approach ensures that master frames are empirically based because they are constructed directly from their textual representation rather than measured by survey questions, a strategy that runs the risk of taking the frame as a given rather than demonstrating its structure’’ (Johnston, 2002: 82). 510 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

A semantic grammar5 is the essential semantic structure that a text can be translated into. Franzosi (2010: 23) defines it as ‘‘the set of rules that provides the categories into which the various invariant elements of a story fall (e.g., actor, action, time, space).’’ A semantic grammar coding scheme depends upon the linguistic properties of the text rather than upon research-specific interests6. A typical semantic grammar incorporates the generic S–V–O (Subject–Verb–Object) template able to highlight what specific subjects do/are, in relation to other specific objects (Franzosi, 2010: 33–38). Rewrite rules provide one of the possible ways to visualize a semantic grammar coding scheme. As Franzosi (2010: 23) points out, in rewrite rules an initial symbol can be rewritten (!) as the string of symbols–categories—after the arrow, also called nonterminal symbols. General categories are broken up into progressively simpler units until they cannot be fragmented any further. Rewrite rules specify the relations between strings of terminal and nonterminal symbols allowed in the language. Hence, through a rewrite rule, the simple S–V–O structure can be expressed in terms of its basic components7: hclausei!{hsubjecti}{hverbi}[{hobjecti}] hsubjecti!{hactori}j{hnon-actori} hactori!crowd j political party j social movement j ... hnon-actori!poverty j environment j war j ... hverbi!bring j oppose j mobilize j ... hobjecti!{hactori} j {hnon-actori} ... As a consequence, every semantic element coded in the text is marked by a series of categories and subcategories it belongs to. The following sections explain exactly how we can apply a set of rewrite rules to generate a consistent frame semantic grammar. First, focusing on subjects, I will show that by distinguishing between self-referential and adversarial passages one can isolate a first set of diagnostic passages: the adversarial diagnostic passages. Diagnosis, in fact, understood as the attribution of blame and causalities, is primarily expressed through the narration of adverse actors’ actions and beings. Second, focusing on verbs, I will show how to recognize diagnosis, prognosis, and motivation in first-person narrations. I argue that, while all adversarial passages tend to hold diagnostic intent, self-referential passages may play any of the three framing tasks. Finally, I will build a semantic grammar able to retrieve framing tasks through the S–V–O template.

2.1. Adversarial framing: diagnosis

Social movements frame discourse to provide movement members with a ‘‘collective us’’ in opposition to an ‘‘adversarial them’’ (Gamson, 1992b: 7). In the analysis of social movements’ textual production, I suggest one should ﬁrst distinguish between ‘‘self-referential’’ and ‘‘adversarial’’ passages. With the term ‘‘self-referential,’’ I refer to all stories and descriptions

5 Building upon Franzosi (2010: 29), the grammar I develop here is meant to study not just narrative proper but also descriptions and evaluations. For this reason I prefer to adopt the term ‘‘semantic grammar’’ rather than ‘‘story grammar.’’ 6 As such, semantic grammars are the best choice for trying to limit the imposition of analysts’ conceptual categories at the earliest stages of analysis. 7 The angular brackets hi denote elements that can be further rewritten; while terminal symbols have no hi. Curly brackets {} signal elements that can occur more than once; while square brackets [] denote optional elements. S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 511 whose subject is the social movement itself or one of its allies. ‘‘Adversarial’’ are, instead, all passages having an oppositional actor as the subject. We can look back at the first models of content analysis to find interesting examples of similar conceptualization. In his 1938 article ‘‘A Provisional Classification of Symbol Data,’’ Lasswell first interpreted textual statements as sequences of interrelated symbols. In his classification of the different types of statements within a text he described ‘‘identification statements’’ as the most important chains of symbols to define actors participating in a narration. Later, Lasswell (1941: 7) wrote: ‘‘Identification statements delimit the ‘self’ and the ‘other.’ The ‘self’ takes in all the symbols included within the ego of the speaker; the ‘other’ includes the egos not enclosed within the scope of the self. A ‘Primary Self Symbol’ refers to the ego of the speaker (‘I,’ ‘Me’).’’ Thus, the definition of self-referential and adversarial process in textual analysis can be traced back to the very beginning of content analysis as proposed by Lasswell. This categorization is the first step towards the reconstruction of framing tasks. We can assume that all adversarial passages delivered in a social movement’s texts help the diagnostic cause since they frame problematic issues and attribute them to a set of adverse actors (them). But how can we address the remaining self-referential framing found in a movement’s text? How do self- referential passages add to a social movement’s collective action frame? In order to answer these questions we need to focus on the way self-referential narrations are linguistically crafted.

2.2. Self-referential framing

2.2.1. Modality A focus on actors through the lens of ‘‘us versus them’’ in the study of social movements’ texts has led us to identify adversarial passages. In order to shed light on self-referential framing, we now need to focus specifically on actions and states. With the term ‘‘process,’’ I here refer to Halliday and Matthiessen’s (2004) theory on representation according to which our experience consists of goings-on—i.e., happening, doing, sensing, meaning and being and becoming. Processes express most of the narration: they deliver doings and beings, possibly relating different actors. Texts deliver processes through verbs. Additional information about a process can be provided by the presence of a modal auxiliary. Modality has been broadly defined as the ‘‘grammaticization of speakers’ (subjective) attitudes and opinions’’ (Bybee et al., 1994: 176). Linguistic literature draws a discrete distinction between two semantically different types of modality built with the same set of modal verbs: ‘‘epistemic’’ and ‘‘root’’ (Bybee et al., 1994: 177–179; Coates, 1983: 10–13; Klinge, 1993: 318–320; Palmer, 2001:8–9;Perkins, 1982: 247). Epistemic modality is ‘‘concerned with the speaker’s assumptions or assessment of possibilities and, in most cases, it indicates the speaker’s confidence (or lack of confidence) in the truth of the proposition expressed’’ (Coates, 1983: 18). Examples of epistemic modality are:

(1) Paul must be in Liverpool by now (Coates, 1983: 18) (2) The storm should clear by tomorrow (Bybee et al., 1994: 180)

In other words, whenever a speaker uses a modal expression containing must, should, may, might, can or could to articulate an inference or a judgment, he/she is using an epistemic modality. Root modality, also called ‘‘event modality’’ (Palmer, 2001) or ‘‘agent-oriented modality’’ (Bybee et al., 1994; Klinge, 1993), ‘‘reports the existence of internal and external conditions on an agent with respect to the completion of the action’’ (Bybee et al., 1994: 177). 512 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

Fig. 1. Modality typologies. As shown in Fig. 1, while epistemic modality is mainly concerned with the content of the proposition, root modality is directly focused on the proposition’s agent (i.e., subject). For this reason, I am interested in root modality to build a frame semantic grammar. Root modality takes different forms that can be collapsed in three core meaning-clusters: obligation, ability/possibility, and intention. These meaning-clusters deliver the potentiality for an action/state to occur, given ‘‘dynamic’’ (i.e., internal) or ‘‘deontic’’ (i.e., external) conditions (Klinge, 1993: 318)8. Obligation – strong or weak – reports the existence of deontic social conditions affecting the completion of an action. It implies a ‘‘moral sense’’ (Perkins, 1982: 247). Must, should, and ought to, are the typical modal auxiliary verbs expressing obligation. Examples of obligation would be:

(3) You ought to be considerate of others (Perkins, 1982: 247) (4) All students must obtain the consent of the Dean of the Faculty concerned before entering for examinations (Coates, 1983: 35)

Examples (3) and (4) show that, while using different modals, the two sentences both convey a sense of obligation. The ability/possibility cluster reports both deontic and dynamic ‘‘enabling conditions in the agent with respect to the predicate action’’ (Bybee et al., 1994: 177). More speciﬁcally, the ability side of this cluster is concerned with dynamic conditions (5) while the possibility side focuses on deontic conditions (6). The central modal auxiliaries of ability/possibility are can, could, may and might.

(5) I can only type very slow as I am a beginner (Coates, 1983: 92) (6) He can escape, the door is not locked (Palmer, 2001: 10).

Intention reports ‘‘internal volitional conditions in the agent with respect to the predicate action’’ (Bybee et al., 1994: 178). It expresses the agent’s disposition towards an action (Perkins, 1982: 260). Shall and will are the central modal auxiliaries of intention. Examples of modality of intentions are:

(7) I’ll help you (Bybee et al., 1994: 178) (8) I will marry her (Perkins, 1982: 261)

8 Dynamic conditions depend upon a characteristic of the subject’s. Deontic conditions depend upon external factors. In the passage ‘‘Tom has been going to swimming lessons all over winter. He can now swim very well,’’ the subject’s ability to swim depends upon his own newly acquired skills (i.e., dynamic conditions). Rather, in the passage: ‘‘They have ﬁnally ﬁlled the swimming pool. Little Tom can swim again,’’ the subject can swim thanks to a change of external factors (i.e., deontic conditions). S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 513

Table 3 Linguistic and framing typologies. Modal Example Linquistic task Must, ought, should We must do something now Obligation Have to, be to, need to, be They ought to stop bound to, ... We need to do something Can, could, may, might We can control our lives Ability/possibility Be able to, be We could change the world capable to,... We are capable of making it work Will, shall, We will do that for our country Intention Want to, mean to, be going We want to start action to,... We are going to ﬁght

Table 3 shows a list of primary and quasi-modal verbs, delivering obligation, ability/ possibility and intention in their specific uses. The absence of one of the primary modal auxiliary verbs does not preclude the presence of a modal clause. We can extract modality by interpreting utterances of sentences with modal tendency (Klinge, 1993: 346). Roberts et al. (2007: 7) point out: ‘‘A modal clause is recognizable whenever it conveys intentionality in a way that can be transformed (in a manner agreeable to a native speaker) to a form that includes a modal auxiliary verb.’’ Hence, for instance, the clause ‘‘They have to stop’’ can be transformed into ‘‘They must stop’’ or ‘‘We want to fight’’ could be turned into ‘‘We are willing to fight.’’ Investigating the use of different modalities in a text can help the researcher analyse how intentionality is shaped through words. Roberts (2008) provides one of the rare applications of modality analysis for sociological purposes, defining modality as the ‘‘language-of-motivation.’’ He presents an extensive evaluation of the potential of modality analysis to study intentionality in different cultures (Roberts, 2008; Roberts et al., 2007). By contrast, in this paper I address whether modality analysis could help build an effective frame analysis design. The next section will show that the answer lies in the lexical semantics of modal passages.

2.2.2. Self-referential diagnosis, prognosis, and motivation While adversarial framing primarily conveys oppositional statements, self-referential framing requires a more thoughtful investigation. I suggest that, by studying the linguistic tasks carried out by modal processes, we can try to define the framing tasks produced by self-referential content. The researcher should then distinguish among root-modal expressions dealing with the three core meanings explained in the previous section: obligation, ability/possibility, and intention. In specific terms, I assume that modal forms expressing obligation in first-person processes essentially deliver diagnostic framing since they imply a diagnostic reason for an action to occur. In the clause: ‘‘We must take action,’’ for instance, we assume that the necessity for the action to occur is given by some external rationales signaled by the modal verb ‘‘must.’’ Linguists would call it ‘‘deontic modality’’ while social scientists would name it ‘‘diagnostic framing.’’ In fact, the moral sense typical of obligation modality expresses the moral duty of diagnostic framing. Ability/possibility and intention processes deliver future actions and states in two different types of prognostic framing. While ability/possibility expresses what can be done, given internal and external conditions, intention draws the attention to what will be done to alter a problematic condition. 514 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

All remaining self-referential processes delivered by non-modal predicates will also require careful investigation. State processes are central for a social movement to deﬁne and characterize its being. ‘‘Narrative proper’’ (Franzosi, 2010: 29) processes provide the movement’s own history. These processes, together with mottos and claims, all participate in the motivational cause. The analytical method so far introduced suggests a textual analysis able to evaluate the presence of actors and processes and to distinguish among different types of processes. In order to meet this goal we now need to elaborate a speciﬁc semantic grammar.

2.3. Frame semantic grammar

Drawing upon the previous sections, we can assume that the three core framing tasks can be reconstructed as shown in Table 4. As noted, adversarial processes (i.e., with subject ‘‘They’’) frame enemies and faults. By depicting problems and attributing them to adverse actors they build the diagnostic dimension. Self-referential processes (i.e., with subject ‘‘We’’) of obligation complete the diagnostic dimension by depicting actions that must be done to address the problematic issues. Self-referential processes of ability/possibility and of intention deliver future actions that can/ will be done to address the adverse situation. They generate the prognostic dimension by introducing future ameliorative actions. To conclude, the movement’s history, definition and characterization build the motivational dimension by providing salient elements to the public. The modality-based semantic grammar we intend to adopt requires a set of linguistic coding categories able to recognize and cluster different forms of modality. Our frame semantic grammar will then need to focus specifically on actors, processes, and their relational patterns. I borrow Franzosi’s (1989, 1994, 1998, 2010) use of rewrite rules to outline the skeleton of this semantic grammar, and produce the coding scheme for the textual analysis. In the clause, which is the lowest hierarchical level of analysis, a first actor, playing the role of subject and, possibly, a second actor, in the role of object engage in a process. According to the researcher’s interests, actors and processes may be categorized through different modifiers such as gender, age, role, and tense, to name a few. But, most importantly for the frame semantic analysis to be significant, subjects must be categorized as ‘‘collective us’’ or ‘‘adversarial them’’ and processes must be clustered by their modal or non-modal lexical semantics. The following tree graph shows how processes can be categorized (for a whole skeleton of frame semantic grammar please refer to Appendix B in the online supplement) (Fig. 2).

Table 4 Extracting diagnosis, prognosis and motivation from a text. Subject We They Process Modal Obligation Diagnosis Diagnosis Ability/possibility Prognosis Diagnosis Intention Prognosis Diagnosis Nonmodal Action Motivational Diagnosis Character Motivational Diagnosis Deﬁnition Motivational Diagnosis S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 515

Fig. 2. Process tree graph.

Hence, this frame semantic grammar allows the researcher to show where, how and how often in a text a social movement portrays adversarial and own processes. The coding scheme also allows one to distinguish among passages dealing with self-attributed obligations, abilities/ possibilities and intentions. Furthermore, it is able to cluster self-referential action and state processes, with the ﬁrst delivering the movement’s own history and the second providing either its characterization or deﬁnition (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004). The distance between discourses and collective action frames can then be shortened by translating linguistic tasks into framing purposes. This method allows the researcher to ground frame analysis into the investigation of ‘‘manifest (or objective) content,’’ away from qualitative content analysis techniques which require more ‘‘impressionistic judgments’’ (Roberts, 1989: 148). Yet, in order to capture entirely a collective action frame, we still need to go from framing tasks to frame components.

3. The whole picture

Having found a way to read framing tasks in social movements’ texts, how can we approach frame components? The next level of analysis precisely focuses on collective action frames as systematically built on the three variable components: injustice, agency, and identity. Given that the attributional function of diagnostic framing assigns causes to problematic issues and therefore implies a moral definition of societal problems, it was argued that diagnostic elements tend to generate a sense of injustice. The agency component is rather built up by prognostic elements. Specifically, it defines what ‘‘collective us’’ has the ability and the possibility to do in the future. To conclude, the identity dimension delivers a movement’s salience, or characteristic features. Gamson (1992a,b: 84) identifies three overlapping layers in the identity component: organisational, movement and solidary group. These different layers may or may not be embedded in one another according to the history and the context of the collective social actor. I argue that the identity component is generated by those accounts defining and characterizing ‘‘collective us,’’ together with all self-referential narratives reporting its past and present history. As noted, the identity component is also generated by all those prognostic actions delivering the movement’s intentions. Modality of intention, in fact, is ‘‘dynamic’’ (Klinge, 1993; Palmer, 2001)by definition—i.e., it reports the agent’s internal disposition towards an action. 516 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

Fig. 3. Collective action frame.

The scheme proposed in Fig. 39 summarizes the elaboration of collective action frames through social movement discourses. The innermost circle reproduces the linguistic features of textual content aimed at framing a movement’s collective action. This content provides – in the mid circle – the three primary framing tasks required for a collective action frame to be formulated. Finally, these framing tasks are functional to generate the sustained frame components running in the external circle. In other words, this scheme shows the two-step journey to move from discourses to cognition in social movement framing.

4. Two examples of coding

To understand how a frame semantic grammar can help identify frames in a text, consider the following excerpt from the Declaration of Intents published on the 2005 website of the Gothenburg Social Forum. The Gothenburg Social Forum signed the World Social forum declaration of intents that was initiated in Porto Alegre in 2001. The Gothenburg Social forum wants to debate and look deeper into suggestions and initiatives, exchange experiences and form alliances between groups, movements and

9 The proportions of the pie’s areas are approximated on the results shown by Vicari’s (2008) investigation of frame dynamics within social forums’ content. However, I do not assume that they can be representative of any social movement’s collective action frame. The aim of Fig. 2 is to show how linguistic structures, framing tasks and frame components interplay at different levels, not to measure their proportions within any collective action frame (on the proportions of diagnostic and prognostic framing, see Gerhards and Rucht, 1992: 582). S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 517

individuals in the civil society. The basic principle for the meeting place is to levy critiques against marketing fundamentalism, militarism and world domination of the capital. ...Those that take part are therefore demanded to be open-minded and to work together despite differences in opinion. (Gothenburg Social Forum 2005) Using PC-ACE (Program for Computer-Assisted Coding of Events; available for free download at www.pc-ace.com) we can proceed with the coding (for the skeleton of the applied story grammar see Appendix B in the online supplement). PC-ACE data entry system will allow us to assign each textual element to its corresponding category according to our grammar (on how to deal with data entry in PC-ACE, please see Appendix C of the online supplement). So, the coding of our text will look as follows: h1i (Paragraph: h1.1i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (non-modal: (Action: (verb: signed)))))) (Object: (non-actor: WSF declaration of intents))) h2i (Paragraph: h2.1i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: debate))))))) h2.2i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: look)))))) (Object: (case: into) (non-actor: suggestions))))))) h2.3i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: look)))))) (Object: (case: into) (non-actor: initiatives))))) h2.4i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: exchange)))))) (Object: (non-actor: experiences)))))) h2.5i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: form)))))) (Object: (non-actor: alliances))))) h2.6i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: levy critiques)))))) (Object: (case: against) (non-actor: marketing fundamentalism))) h2.7i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: levy critiques)))))) (Object: (case: against) (non-actor: militarism))) 518 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 h2.8i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Gothenburg Social Forum)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Intention: (auxiliary modal: wants to) (verb: levy critiques)))))) (Object: (case: against) (non-actor: world domination of the capital))) h3i (Paragraph: h3.1i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Participants)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Obligation: (auxiliary modal: must) (Nominal predicate: (Deﬁnition: (Copula: be) (Nominal part: open- minded))))))))) h3.2i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Participants)))) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (modal: (Obligation: (auxiliary modal: must) (verb: work together)))))) (Object: (case: despite) (non-actor: differences in opinion)))))))

The rewrite rules used here heavily draw upon Franzosi’s conceptualization of a story grammar (Franzosi, 2010). Franzosi (1997) uses story grammars to extract historical data from narrative texts (e.g., newspaper articles). What I mean to look for in the text is the way different processes (i.e., actions, deﬁnitions, characterizations, intentions, obligations, and potentials) are assigned to opposing actors rather than what those actors factually do. I look at texts as channels for interpretative processes (i.e., cognitive schemes) rather than sources of historical data. In this sense, a frame semantic grammar needs to focus on actors and processes, with a speciﬁc interest in both the dichotomy between self-referential and adversarial framing and the typology of processes behind the framing. So, given the coding, how do we extract framing tasks and frame components? Querying our coding output for the semantics of its processes, clustered by subjects (i.e., we/they), we can visualize the relevant values. Thus, on the basis of what we stated in the previous sections, framing elements can now be reconstructed (see Table 5). We can then assume that our sample text expresses strong prognosis, some diagnosis, and little motivation. Moreover, prognosis is primarily intentional, building up the identity component. On the basis of the relations between tasks and components theorized in Section 1.1 and visualized in Table 2 and Fig. 3, we can also assume that the injustice component mainly draws upon

Table 5 Query results.

Clause semantics Adversarial (they) Self-referential (we)

Process semantics Any Obligation Ability/possibility Intention Action character Deﬁnition

Be open minded Debate Signed work together Look Look Values Exchange Form Levy critiques Levy critiques Levy critiques Total 2 0 8 1 0 0

Framing task Diagnosis (2) Prognosis (8) Motivational (1) Frame component Injustice (2) Agency (O) Identity (9) S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 519 self-referential moral obligation, with little mention of adversarial framing. To conclude, this excerpt does not show any agency frame component. Framing scope apart, we can also focus on the actual content of our coded processes. Most importantly, we can state that prognosis mostly relies upon processes belonging to the semantic area of discussion (‘‘debate,’’ ‘‘levy critiques’’ (3)) that seems to be the central focus of the identity frame component. But let us now focus on a different text, the Declaration of Intents published on the 2005 website of the Sidney Social Forum: In Australia, the Howard government’s enthusiastic support for US foreign policy has been accompanied by increasing attacks on public healthcare and higher education, the continuation of a deplorable refugee policy, and a push for wider deregulation and privatization as part of a Free Trade Agreement with the US. On the other side, the worldwide movement against the war in Iraq – and Sydney’s largest ever political demonstration in February 2003 – was also a spectacular expression of opposition to corporate greed. (Sidney Social Forum 2005) The coding of this second excerpt will look as follows: h1i (Paragraph: h1.1i (Clause: (Type of clause: adversarial) (Subject: (actor: Howard Government)) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (non-modal: (Action: (verb: supported)))))) (Object: (non-actor: US foreign policy) (clauses relation: while) h1.2i (Clause: (Type of clause: adversarial) (Subject: (actor: Howard Government)) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (non-modal: (Action: (verb: attacked)))))) (Object: (non-actor: public healthcare) (Object: (non-actor: higher education))) h1.3i (Clause: (Type of clause: adversarial) (Subject: (actor: Howard Government)) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (non-modal: (Action: (verb: continued)))))) (Object: (non-actor: deplorable refugee policy))) h1.4i (Clause: (Type of clause: adversarial) (Subject: (actor: Howard Government)) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (non-modal: (Action: (verb: pushed)))))) (Object: (case: for) (non-actor: wider deregulation))) h1.5i (Clause: (Type of clause: adversarial) (Subject: (actor: Howard Government)) (Process: (Type of process: (Verbal predicate: (non-modal: (Action: (verb: pushed)))))) (Object: (case: for) (Object: (non-actor: wider privatization))) h2i (Paragraph: h2.1i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: worldwide movement against the war in Iraq) (Process: (Type of process: (Nominal predicate: (modal: (Deﬁnition: (copula: was) (nominal part: spectacular expression of opposition)))))) (Object: (case: to) (non-actor: corporate greed)))) h2.2i (Clause: (Type of clause: self-referential) (Subject: (actor: Sydney’s largest ever political demonstration in February 2003)) (Process: (Type of process: (Nominal predicate: (modal: (Deﬁnition: (copula: was) (nominal part: spectacular expression of opposition)))))) (Object: (case: to) (non-actor: corporate greed))))

As shown in Table 6, this excerpt heavily focuses on diagnostic framing, and it does so by attributing problems to speciﬁc adverse actors. There is no mention of prognostic propositions and there are two motivational items. 520 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

Table 6 Query results.

Clause semantics Adversarial (they) Self-referential (we)

Process semantics Any Obligation Ability/possibility Intention Action Character Deﬁnition

Values Supported Was Attacked Was Continued Pushed for Pushed for Total 5 0 0 0 0 0 2

Framing task Diagnosis (5) Prognosis (0) Motivational (2) Frame component Injustice (5) Agency (0) Identity (2)

As a result, this passage provides a strong injustice frame component, primarily drawing attention to societal problems and their causes.

4.1. Implications of the method

The examples show that most narrative and non-narrative elements attributed to ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘them’’ in the original input texts also appear in the outputs. What is more, individual textual elements have found appropriate categories in the grammar. However, as Franzosi (2010: 40) points out while assessing pros and cons in the use of semantic grammars, the process of coding might require some manipulation of the original text. Let us review the most relevant manipulations exerted in the examples above. Clause 2.6 in the ﬁrst coding output required rewording the expression The basic principle for the meeting place is to render the modal tendency of the sentence. As noted, modality can be extracted by interpreting utterances of sentences. The expression was then interpreted as a self- attributed intention of action. The second coding output also shows that relevant processes might be delivered by verbal nouns, such as support, attack, continuation, and push. Skimming over these textual elements would imply missing narrative elements (i.e., the actions to support, to attack, to continue, and to push) attributed to an adversarial actor (i.e., The Howard Government). However, certain elements may be dropped from the coding process. The predicate was accompanied, for instance, does not appear in the second coding output because it does not convey a process attributed to either ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘them.’’ It rather expresses the chronological relation between the action to support and the actions to attack, to continue, and to push. The semantic meaning of was accompanied was then coded within the category hclauses relationi in clause 1.1 in the second coding output. To conclude, sentences with compound (i.e., multiple) subjects, predicates, or objects convey multiple framing elements. For this reason, in both the examples, such sentences were split into simple clauses where one single actor engages in one single process possibly affecting one single object10.

10 Indeed, this could be a very lengthy process. However, PC-ACE allows the user to code clauses with multiple subjects, processes, or objects as they appear in the input coding. Then, at the time of querying the data, PC-ACE query manager counts each single subject–process–object combination. S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 521

Despite the manipulations exerted on the original texts, by comparing input and output we can state that there is a very close relationship between the two. In fact, the manipulation’s effects are reduced by the fact that coding input and output bear the same semantic meaning. One should notice that the coding process was able to highlight two primary aspects of social movement framing. First, it uncovered the ‘‘collective us’’ versus ‘‘adversarial them’’ dichotomy. Second, it shed light on the different actions, deﬁnitions, characterizations, intentions, obligations, and potentials attributed to ‘‘collective us’’ and ‘‘adversarial them.’’ Finally, this technique is speciﬁcally devised to analyze social movement-generated texts. Yet, different kinds of frame semantic grammar may be generated to investigate the frame dynamics underlying different types of texts (e.g., newspaper columns, speeches, letters).

5. Discussion

The previous section showed the ways in which a frame semantic grammar can add to the analysis of social movements’ interpretative dimension. The first central characteristic lies in the use of a grammar based on linguistic properties of texts. This allows the production of objective coding categories, independent from research questions and case studies. The adoption of a frame semantic grammar can help answer such questions as: according to the movement, who are the enemies and what are they blamed for? Who participates in ‘‘collective us?’’ How does a social movement-generated content frame obligations, intentions, and potentials? Within diagnostic framing who is the most targeted enemy? Who is involved in prognostic framing? What is the strongest framing task? Which frame component is mostly used? Is there any relationship between different frame components? Beyond the quantification of framing tasks and frame components, this linguistic coding also allows one to identify what meaning is functional to what, or to answer the following questions: What are the prevailing diagnostic elements? What is the proposed prognosis? What are the central identity values? Hence, relying upon the coding output, we can group the major themes generating any framing task or populating any frame component. In fact, frame semantic grammars afford potential for quantitative discussion but do not preclude qualitative considerations. Numbers are the result of queries on the coding output. Considerations on more qualitative characteristics can be drawn focusing on the content of frame elements as displayed in the coding output. Finally, this technique does provide an integrated system allocating all primary elements of collective action frames within a scheme of interpretation. It overcomes more abstract conceptual discussions that have failed to achieve empirical depth. In conclusion, frame semantic grammars allow the researcher to walk all the way from words to frames, from linguistic elements to cognitive images. However, this method has its own limitations. Empirical rigor is achieved at the price of considering frame fields – tasks and components – as mutually exclusive categories while in reality, fuzzy fields cannot be universally excluded. In collective action frames, for example, certain aspects of identity and agency components can be embedded in one another; motivational framing sometimes borrows from diagnostic and prognostic tasks. And yet, none of this will be pictured using this frame semantic grammar. Moreover, by applying a linguistically based coding scheme, interpretative biases are reduced but not totally excluded. The analyst is still to discern, for instance, the divide between self-referential and adversarial passages, and this process in some cases may suffer interpretative biases (e.g., deriving from cultural factors). However, this analytical tool does provide an overall realistic portrait of collective action frames since it allows the researcher to highlight leading tendencies of frame strategies. 522 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

Moreover, numbers yielded by queries on the coding output can be used to devise network models. This allows the researcher to shed light on the way drawing speciﬁc relations between actors or concepts, texts can generate different frame dynamics11. The semantic grammar adopted for the elaboration of this speciﬁc analytical design borrows substantial concepts from existing techniques. What is new is the application of such techniques to study frames systematically. In fact, semantic grammars have been primarily used for QNA (Quantitative Narrative Analysis), with a focus on what actors actually do, i.e., on who, does what, when, where, and why (Franzosi, 2010), while modality analysis has been employed to study the way modality is used in diverse cultures to express different intentionalities (Roberts, 2008). The modality-based semantic grammar I propose in this paper aims at a totally different use: it is interested in the analysis of collective action frames. It does not mean to measure factual events (Franzosi, 2010) or study cultural implications in language use (Roberts, 2008); it reconstructs schemes of interpretations crafted for mobilization purposes.

6. Conclusions

Framing theory is becoming a vital component of contemporary social movement studies. Its steady development in the past 30 years is partly due to the shift of focus on a previously neglected aspect of social mobilization: the interpretative dimension. The idea that frames could be extracted from discourses has long been accepted and developed through different analytical routes. The first part of this paper reviewed some of the framing literature engaged in the study of collective action frames through the analysis of social movement discourses, showing how a common methodological terrain is yet to be established. Frame analysis designs are usually based on case studies and focus on either one of the conceptual frame elements rather than on collective action frames as complex cognitive systems. The present paper showed how it is possible to elaborate a more comprehensive picture of social movements’ framing processes through a systematic analysis of movement discourses. The innovation underlying this model of frame-minded textual analysis concerns the way it provides a methodological tool able to bridge linguistic features and interpretative processes. It affords, in fact, quantitative information on the actual distribution of linguistic structures holding framing tasks. This can nurture the study of relational dynamics strategically outlined within collective action frames, providing information on the way social movement actors intend to generate political consciousness in the public. In so doing, frame analysis can move efficiently and effectively from words to framing tasks and finally reproduce the very essence of frame components, the ultimate cognitive products of collective action frames.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.poetic.2010.07.002.

11 By coding actors and processes among actors (e.g., critique, support, blame), we can generate different maps of social relations. In other words, if we turn actors into network nodes and relational processes into ties, we can visualize the map of social relations delivered by the texts (on the way this can be done using PC-ACE, please see Appendix D in the online supplement). S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 523

References

Babb, S., 1996. A true American system of finance: frame resonance in the U.S. labor movement, 1866–1886. American Sociological Review 61, 1033–1052. Bateson, G., 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Intext, Philadelphia. Benford, R.D., 1993a. Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces 71, 677–701. Benford, R.D., 1993b. ‘‘You could be the hundredth monkey:’’ collective action frames and vocabularies of motive within the nuclear disarmament movement. Sociological Quarterly 34, 195–216. Benford, R.D., 1997. An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry 67, 409–430. Benford, R.D., Snow, D.A., 2000. Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26, 611–639. Berbrier, H., 1998. ‘‘Half the battle:’’ cultural resonance, framing processes and ethnic affectations in contemporary white separatist rhetoric. Social Problems 45, 431–450. Bybee, J.L., Perkins, R.D., Pagliuca, W., 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Language of the World. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Cadena-Roa, J., 2002. Strategic framing, emotions, and superbarrio—Mexico City’s masked crusader. Mobilization 7 (2), 201–216. Capek, S.M., 1993. The ‘‘environmental justice’’ frame: a conceptual discussion and application. Social Problems 40, 5– 24. Carley, K., 1993. Coding choices for textual analysis: a comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Sociological Methodology 23, 75–126. Carley, K., 1994. Extracting culture through textual analysis. Poetics 22, 291–312. Coates, J., 1983. The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. Croom Helm, London. Coy, P.G., Woehrle, L.M., 1996. Constructing identity and oppositional knowledge: the framing practices of peace movement organizations during the Persian Gulf War. Sociological Spectrum 16, 287–327. Cress, D.M., Snow, D.A., 2000. The outcomes of homeless mobilization: the influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology 105, 1063–1104. D’Anjou, L., 1996. Social Movements and Cultural Change: the First Abolition Campaign Revisited. Aldine de Gruyer, New York. Diani, M., 1996. Linking mobilization frames and political opportunities: insights from regional populism in Italy. American Sociological Review 61, 1053–1069. Ellingson, S., 1995. Understanding the dialectic of discourse and collective action: public debate and rioting in antebellum Cincinnati. American Journal of Sociology 101, 100–144. Entman, R.M., Rojecki, A., 1993. Freezing out the public: elite and media framing of the U.S. anti-nuclear movement. Political Communication 10, 155–173. Erwin, L., 1993. Neoconservatism and the Canadian pro-family movement. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 30, 401–420. Ferree, M.M., 2003. Resonance and radicalism: feminist framing in the abortion debates of the United States and Germany. American Journal of Sociology 109, 304–344. Franzosi, R., 1989. From words to numbers. Sociological Methodology 19, 263–298. Franzosi, R., 1994. From words to numbers: a set theory framework for the collection, organisation, and analysis of narrative data. Sociological Methodology 24, 105–136. Franzosi, R., 1997. New directions in formalization and historical analysis. Theory and Society 26, 133–160. Franzosi, R., 1998. Narrative analysis—or why (and how) sociologists should be interested in narrative. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 517–554. Franzosi, R., 2010. Quantitative Narrative Analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Franzosi, R., Mohr, J.W., 1997. New directions in formalization and historical analysis. Theory and Society 26, 133–160. Gamson, W., 1992a. The social psychology of collective action. In: Morris, A.D., Mueller, C.M. (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 53–76. Gamson, W., 1992b. Talking Politics. Cambridge University Press, New York. Gerhards, J., Rucht, D., 1992. Mesomobilization: organizing and framing in two protest campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology 98, 555–595. Goffman, E., 1974. Frame Analysis. Harper Colophon, New York. Griffin, R.W., 1992. Political opportunity, resource mobilization, and social movements: the case of the south Texas farm workers. Social Science Journal 29, 129–152. 524 S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525

Halliday, M.A.K., Matthiessen, C.M.I.M., 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed. Edward Arnold, London, London. Hall, S., 1982. The rediscovery of ideology: return to the repressed in media studies. In: Gurevitch, M., Bennet, T., Curon, J., Woolacott, J. (Eds.), Culture, Society and the Media. Methuen, New York, pp. 56–90. Jenness, V., 1995. Social movement growth, domain expansion, and framing processes: the gay/lesbian movement and violence against gays and lesbians as a social problem. Social Problems 42, 145–170. Johnston, H., 1995. A methodology for frame analysis: from discourse to cognitive schemata. In: Johnston, H., Klan- dermans, B. (Eds.), Social Movements and Culture. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 217–246. Johnston, H., 2002. Verification and proof in frame and discourse analysis. In: Klandermans, B., Staggenborg, S. (Eds.), Methods of Social Movements Research. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp. 62–91. Klinge, A., 1993. The English modals auxiliaries: from lexical semantics to utterance interpretation. Journal of Linguistics 29, 315–357. Lasswell, H.D., 1941. The Technique of Symbol Analysis. Experimental Division for the Study of War Time Communications. Library of Congress, Washington, DC. McCaffrey, D., Keys, J., 2000. Competitive framing processes in the abortion debate: polarization–vilification, frame saving, and frame debunking. Sociological Quarterly 41, 41–61. McCammon, H.J., 2001. Stirring up suffrage sentiment: the formation of the state woman suffrage organizations, 1866– 1914. Social Forces 80, 449–480. McCammon, H.J., Muse, C.S., Newman, H.D., Terrell, T.M., 2007. Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures: the political successes of the U.S. women’s jury movements. American Sociological Review 72, 725– 750. McCarthy, J.D., 1994. Activists, authorities, and media framing of drunk driving. In: Larana, E., Johnston, H., Gusfield, J. (Eds.), New Social Movements: From Ideology to Identity. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, pp. 133–167. McCarthy, J.D., Zald, M.N., 1977. Resource mobilization and social movements: a partial theory. American Journal of Sociology 82, 1212–1241. Mohr, J.W., 1998. Measuring meaning structures. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 345–370. Mooney, P.H., Hunt, S.A., 1996. A repertoire of interpretations: master frames and ideological continuity in U.S. agrarian mobilization. Sociological Quarterly 37, 177–197. Noonan, R.K., 1995. Women against the state: political opportunities and collective action frames in Chile’s transition to democracy. Sociological Forum 10, 81–111. Palmer, F.R., 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Perkins, M.R., 1982. The core meaning of British modals. Journal of Linguistics 18, 245–273. Roberts, C.W., 1989. Other than counting words: a linguistic approach to content analysis. Social Forces 68, 147–177. Roberts, C.W., 2008. ‘‘The’’ Fifth Modality: On Languages that Shape Our Motivations and Cultures. Brill Academic Publishers, Boston. Roberts, C.W., Zuell, C., Landmann, J., 2007. Modality analysis: a semantic grammar for imputations of intentionality in texts. In: Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Philadelphia. Rohlinger, D., 2002. Framing the abortion debate: organizational resources, media strategies, and movement-counter- movement dynamics. Sociological Quarterly 43, 479–507. Rothman, F.D., Oliver, P.E., 1999. From local to global: the anti-dam movement in southern Brazil, 1979–1992. Mobilization 4, 41–57. Snow, D., 2004. Framing processes, ideology, and discursive fields. In: Snow, D., Soule, S.A., Kriesi, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 380–412. Snow, D.A., Benford, R.D., 1988. Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1, 197–218. Snow, D.A., Benford, R.D., 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris, A., Mueller, C.M. (Eds.), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp. 133–156. Snow, D.A., Byrd, S.C., 2007. Ideology, framing processes, and Islamic terrorist movements. Mobilization 12, 119–136. Snow, D.A., Rochford, B.E., Worden, S., Benford, R.D., 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51, 464–481. Snow, D.A., Vliegenthart, R., Corigall-Brown, C., 2007. Framing the French riots: a comparative study of frame variation. Social Forces 86, 385–415. Steinberg, M.W., 1998. Tilting the frame: considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn. Theory and Society 27, 845–872. Vicari, S., 2008. Contemporary protest: the online framing of local and global dynamics. Unpublished dissertation; Department of Sociology, University of Reading. S. Vicari / Poetics 38 (2010) 504–525 525

White, H., Godart F.C., 2007. Stories from identity and control. Sociologica: Italian Journal of Sociology Online 1 (3). http://www.sociologica.mulino.it/journal/article/index/Article/Journal:ARTICLE:123/Item/Journal:ARTICLE:123. Williams, R.H., 1995. Constructing the public good: social movements and cultural resources. Social Problems 42, 124– 144. Wilson, J., 1973. Introduction to Social Movements. Basic Books, New York. Zajonc, R.B., 1980. Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 35, 151–175. Zuo, J., Benford, R.D., 1995. Mobilization processes and the 1989 Chinese democracy movement. Sociological Quarterly 36, 131–156.

Supplementary data

Stefania Vicari received her Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Reading, U.K. in 2009. She is currently working as a lecturer and junior researcher at DEIS, University of Sassari, Italy.