Cover not available

In:Follow-ups in Political Discourse: Explorations across contexts and discourse domains
Edited by Elda Weizman and Anita Fetzer
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 60] 2015
► pp. 139–168

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Framing the Queen’s head scarf

A case study of follow-ups in Dutch politics

Published online: 20 August 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.60.06ens
In this chapter, follow-ups in political communication are conceived in a broad sense, as any more or less systematic consequence of or result from previous politically relevant communicative utterances and events, mostly implying an evaluation of the previous act. Since political communication by its very nature aims at influencing the electorate, follow-ups in general will pursue this goal. An important technique for influencing the public is framing. A frame embodies a particular view on a specific topic, and entails an evaluation. The success of a frame hinges on its continual repetition, so as to make them part of tacit background knowledge among the public. Politicians must use attention attracting devices in their communication to invoke and establish a certain frame, and to contest competing frames. In this contribution a specific case from Dutch politics will be analyzed, exemplifying this approach: Queen Beatrix wore a head scarf during a visit to a mosque. Dutch politicians and media reacted to her dress from within either of two competing frames: either giving in to an oppressive religion or ideology, or being polite by complying with the host’s values. Politicians react almost exclusively to support their favorite frame.
References (23)
References
Atkinson, John Maxwell. 1984. Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bransford, John D. and Nancy S. McCarrell. 1977. “A Sketch of a Cognitive Approach to Comprehension: Some Thoughts about Understanding what it Means to Comprehend. Iin Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science ed. by Philip N. Johnson‑Laird and Peter C. Wason, 377–399. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 1990. “From Talk to Text: Newspaper Accounts of Reporter-source Interactions. Media, culture and society 12: 79–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Vreese, Claes H. 2003. Framing Europe. Television News and European Integration. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “News framing: Theory and Typology.” Information Design Journal + Document Design 13(1): 51–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ensink, Titus. 2012a. “Framing as a Continual and Repetitive Process in Political Communication.” In Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions, Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 58–71. Würzburg: Universität Würzburg – [online]. URL: [URL] URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-71656.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012b. “Internet Newspaper Discussion Lists: A Virtual Political Arena?” In Dialogue in Politics ed. by Lawrence N. Berlin and Anita Fetzer, 21–42. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ensink, Titus, and Christoph Sauer. 2003. “Social-Functional and Cognitive approaches to Discourse Interpretation: The role of Frame and Perspective.”, In Framing and Perspectivising in Discourse, ed. by Titus Ensink and Christoph Sauer, 3–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 2003. “Cascading activation: Contesting the White House’s Frame after 9/11. Political Communication 20(4): 415–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1969. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York etc.: Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Forms of Talk Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Houtkoop-Steenstra, Hanneke. 2000. Interaction in the Standardized Survey Interview: The Living Questionnaire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuipers, Benjamin J. 1975. “A Frame for Frames: Representing Knowledge for Recognition.” In Representation and Understanding. Studies in Cognitive Science, ed. by Daniel G. Bobrow and Allan Collins, 151–184. New York etc.: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuitenbrouwer, Jan. 2010. De woorden van Wilders & hoe ze werken [The words of Wilders and How they work] Amsterdam: Bezige Bij.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Why it Matters how we frame the Environment.” Environmental Communication 4(1): 70–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sauer, Christoph. 2012. “Framing in Talk Shows and its Visualisation.” In Proceedings of the ESF Strategic Workshop on Follow-ups Across Discourse Domains: A Cross-Cultural Exploration of Their Forms and Functions , Würzburg (Germany), 31 May – 2 June 2012, ed. by Anita Fetzer, Elda Weizman and Elisabeth Reber, 221–235.
. “Follow-ups in Political Talk shows and their Visual Framing”, This volume.
Sinclair, John and Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Waugh, Linda. 1995. “Reported Speech in Journalistic Discourse: The Relation of Function and Text.” Text 15: 129–173.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Weizman, Elda
2023. Recontextualization practices: A scale of directness. Frontiers in Communication 7 DOI logo
Berlin, Lawrence N., Elda Weizman & Anita Fetzer
2015. Introduction. In The Dynamics of Political Discourse [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 259], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue