Framing Issues in The Specialised Discourse Of Diplomacy: A Quantitative and Qualitative Approach


  • Cinzia Spinzi



Relevant international issues, such as terrorism, immigration, climate change, human security, cybersecurity and so on, imply the construction of complex ideological and axiological discursive positions, which stem from a web of unavoidably superimposed emotional and moral evaluations, often interwoven with logical observations (Spinzi 2016). All transactions whether promoting ideologies and values or selling products are a way of profiting from the general representation of a nation, and strategic communication contributes to this by increasing appreciation and influencing people’s behaviour.

Embracing the perspective that transformations in social life are led by discourse (Fairclough, 2006a: 24-25), this study explores the specialized ‘realm’ of diplomacy that expresses the foreign policy of a country. This research is an enquiry into the communicative and, more particularly, persuasive strategies used by British foreign ministers to pursue their ideological design and to construct a positive image of their country’s policy by claiming unity. In the context of foreign policy, language choices, which carry significant communicative intent, are regularly made “to galvanize the audience to achieve a commonality of purpose” (Burhanudeen, 2005: 37) through the enactment of specific linguistic frames.

This study assumes a cognitive perspective on the language of diplomacy outlining the ways in which speakers negotiate solidarity with their audience by ‘naturalizing’ a variety of ideological positions through the particular frames chosen. Frames are conceptual structures reproducing particular areas of knowledge and experience (Fillmore 1982, 1985). Data come from an ad-hoc corpus which includes online speeches by the British foreign ministers from 1997 up to the present times and online interviews published in different online newspapers.

In this work, I will focus on those framing devices which appeal primarily to the power of reason, from assertion to typecasting and semantic categories (Scott 2013). When considering such mechanisms, the present work has two main areas of interest: linguistic and institutional. From the linguistic point of view, our interest concerns those lexical and grammatical patterns which express the point of view of the speakers (Stubbs, 1996: 20), namely their way of projecting the world, their way of persuading and positioning their audience to accept what they say. From the institutional point of view, it is crucial to determine “how is discourse organized” in order to “appear factual, literal, objective, authoritative” (Partington 2003: 5; Stubbs 1996: 97) and persuasive.


Bondi, Marina. “Perspectives on keywords and keyness: An Introduction.” Eds. Marina Bondi and Mike Scott.
Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010.
Burhanudeen, Hafriza. “Diplomatic Language: An Insight from Speeches Used in International Diplomacy.”
Akademia 67 July 2005: 35-50.
Cooper, Andrew, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur (eds.). “The Challenges of 21st-Century Diplomacy.” The
Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Coward, Martin. Urbicide: The Politics of Urban Destruction. London: Routledge, 2009.
Cox, Brian. Faith-Based Reconciliation: A Moral Vision That Transforms People and Societies. Bloomington:
Xilibris Corporation, 2007.
De Candia, Silvia, Cinzia Spinzi, and Marco Venuti. “‘I Don’t Know the Answer to That Question:’ A CorpusAssisted Discourse Analysis of White House Press Briefings.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis
across Disciplines 7.1 (2013): 66-81.
Entman, Robert. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43.4
(1993): 51-8.
Fillmore, Charles. “Frame Semantics.” Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, 1982. 111-138.
Garzone, Giuliana. “Strategie di hedging e modulazione della forza illocutori a nel testo scientifico.” Eds.
Giuliano Bernini, Giacomo Ferrari and Maria Pavesi. Atti del Terzo Congresso di Studi della
Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata 22-23 febbraio 2002. Perugia: Guerra, 2004. 213-235.
---. and Skrikant Sarangi (eds.). “Discourse, Ideology and Specialised Communication: A Critical Introduction.”
Discourse, Ideology and Specialised Communication. Bern: Peter Lang, 2007.
Gledhill, Christopher. “The Discourse Function of Collocation in Research Article Introductions.” English for
Specific Purposes 19 (2000): 115-135.
Goatly, Andrew. Washing the brain. Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2007.
Goffmann, Erving. Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behaviour. London: Aldine Publishing Company,
Gotti, Maurizio. “Intercultural Trends in Specialized Discourse.” British and American Studies XIII (2007): 215-
Groom, Nicholas. “Closed-Class Keywords and Corpus-Driven Discourse Analysis.” Keyness in Texts. Eds.
Marina Bondi and Mike Scott. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010.
Hart, Cristopher. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration
Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
---. “Metaphor and Intertextuality in Media Framings of the (1984-85) British Miners’ Strike: A Multimodal
Analysis.” Discourse & Communication 11.1 (2017): 3-30.
Kövecses, Zoltán. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Martin, James Robert. “Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English.” Evaluation in Text: Authorial
Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Eds. Susan Huston and Geoffrey Thompson. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000. 142-175.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press, 1980.
---. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1987.
Lederach, John Paul. The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2005.
Minsky, Marvin. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” Knowledge and Cognition. Ed. Patrick Winston.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975. 201-310.
Musolff, Andreas. Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. London:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
---. “Metaphor Scenarios in Public Discourse.” Metaphor and Symbol 21.1 (2006): 23-38.
Philip, Gillian Susan. “Locating Metaphor Candidates in Specialised Corpora Using Raw Frequency and KeyWord Lists.” Metaphor in Use: Context, Culture, and Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
2012. 85-108.
---. “Metaphorical Keyness in Specialised Corpora.” Keyness in Text. Eds. Marina Bondi and Mike Scott.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010. 185-203.
Scott, James. “Bordering, Border Politics and Cross-Border Cooperation in Europe.” Neighbourhood Policy
and the Construction of the European External Borders. Eds. Filippo Celata and Raffaela Coletti. New
York: Springer, 2015. 27-44.
Scott, Mike. WordSmith Tools. Version 5.0. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.
---. and Christopher Tribble. Textual Patterns, Keywords and Corpus Analysis in Language Education.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006.
Semino, Elena. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2008.
---. ZsÓfia Demjén and Jane Demmen. “An Integrated Approach to Metaphor and Framing in Cognition,
Discourse, and Practice, with an Application to Metaphors for Cancer.” Applied Linguistics 5 (2016): 1-
Spinzi, Cinzia. The Discursive Strategies in the Language of the Foreign Policy. The Semantics and the
Appraisal of Security. Bari: Wip Edizioni, 2016.






Articles: Special Section