Cover not available

In:Framing in Interaction: Pragmatic approaches to framing analysis
Edited by Simon Borchmann, Anne H. Fabricius and Ida Klitgård
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 354] 2025
► pp. 236–268

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

Chapter 9
Assessing deliberative quality in a debate on Facebook

The role of framing

 | Roskilde University
 | Roskilde University
Published online: 30 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.354.09kja
Abstract
This study investigates the practical use of framing on a Facebook page for public debate, shedding light on the conditions for debate on Facebook and contributing to the discussion of the deliberative quality and potential of social media debates. Applying an interactional approach, we analyze participants’ actions and interactions on the Facebook page connected with the Danish public television program “Debatten — DR” (The Debate — DR), focusing on various types of framing, including the platform technology, genre(s) of the online interaction, metacommunicative actions, actions and sequentiality, issue framing, and identities and relations. Our findings reflect on the deliberative quality of the debate, with a particular emphasis on the concept of civility as a theoretical framework for assessment. The study integrates a framing perspective into the analysis, highlighting the complex, multimodal nature of framing in online interaction. The results provide insights into the ways in which participants use framing strategically to promote their viewpoints and construct specific identities and relations, while also navigating the affordances and constraints of the Facebook platform.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An interactional approach to framing
  • 3.The presupposition of civility: A contested genre convention for debates
  • 4.Method and data
    • 4.1Applying EMCA on online debate data
    • 4.2Research ethics
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1The medium and platform technology as a framing mechanism
      • Extract 5.1.1
    • 5.2The genre(s) of the online debate
    • 5.3Metacommunicative actions (formulations)
      • Extract 5.3.1 (2022): Entry of the commentary track on climate
      • Extract 5.3.2 (2029): Entry on climate — and rejection
      • Extract 5.3.3 (2022): Metacommunicative actions as user’s reframing/issue framing (and argumentation)
    • 5.4Actions and sequentiality
      • Extract 5.4.1
      • Extract 5.4.2
    • 5.5Issue framing
      • 5.5.1Negative personal assessments in the program’s posts promoting disagreement
    • 5.6Identities and relations
      • Extract 5.6.1
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Note
  • References
References (50)
References
Analyse & Tal. 2021. Angreb i den offentlige debat på Facebook [Attacking the Public Debate on Facebook]. [URL] (Visited April 3., 2022)
Antaki, Charles, et al. 2006. “For she who knows who she is:” Managing accountability in online forum messages. Journal of computer-mediated communication 11: 114–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John. L. 1962. How to do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. [1954] 1972. “A Theory of Play and Fantasy”, reproduced in Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychology, evolution and epistemology. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bohman, James, and William Rehg. 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, P., N. Lorenza-Dus & P. G. C. Bletvich. 2012. Social interaction in YouTube based polylogues: a study of coherence. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 17(4). 501–521. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen, C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy,” in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, ed. by Alan Hamlin, and Philip Pettit. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins, Luke, and Brigitte Nerlich. 2015. Examining User Comments for Deliberative Democracy: A Corpus-driven Analysis of the Climate Change Debate Online. Environmental Communication, 9 (2): 189–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dainas, Ashley R., and Herring, Susan C. 2021. “Interpreting Emoji Pragmatics.” In Approaches to Internet Pragmatics: Theory and Practice, ed. by Chaoqun Xie, Francisco Yus, and Hartmut Haberland, Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 318. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Kraker, Joop, Sacha Kuijs, Ron Cörvers, and Astrid Offermans. 2014. “Internet public opinion on climate change: a world views analysis of online reader comments”, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 6 (1): 19–33. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewulf, Art, Barbara Gray, Linda Putnam, Roy Lewicki, Noelle Aarts, René Bouwen, and Cees van Woerkum. 2009. “Disentangling Approaches to Framing in Conflict and Negotiation Research: A Meta-paradigmatic Perspective.” Human Relations 62(2): 62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ditton, Jason, and Wes W. Sharrock. 1976. “Frame Analysis, An Essay on the Organization of Experience.” Sociology 10(2): 329–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage, J. 1992. ”Analyzing talk at work: an introduction. In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Emojipedia.org. Visited May 2024 at [URL]
Garfinkel, Harold, and Harvey Sacks. 1970. On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In Theoretical Sociology, ed. by J. D. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian. New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. [1974] 1975. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. “Footing.” In Forms of Talk, 124–159. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1984. “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation.” In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by John Maxwell Atkinson, and John Heritage, 225–246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. “Interactive Footing.” In Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. by Elizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1996. “Shifting Frame.” In Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, ed. by Dan Isaac Slobin, Julia Gerhardt, Alfred F. Kryatzis, and Jean Guo, 71–82. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia. 2001. “Framing and Positioning.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton, and Deborah Schiffrin, 324–345. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Making Meanings: Creating Family — Intertextuality and Framing in Family Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023. Intertextuality 2.0: Metadiscourse and Meaning-Making in an Online Community. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gordon, Cynthia, and Deborah Tannen. 2023. “Framing and related concepts in interactional sociolinguistics.” Discourse studies 2023–04, 25 (2): 237–246.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. [1961] 1991. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 1999. “Interactional coherence in CMC”. Journal of computer mediated communication 4 (4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjærbeck, Susanne and Nielsen, Niels M. 2022. “Debat på et socialt medie: En kvalitativ undersøgelse af kommunikativ praksis på Debatten-DRs Facebook-side.” [Debate on social media: A qualitative study of communicative practice on Debatten-DR’s Facebook site] NyS 62: 7–45. [URL].
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcoccia, Michel. 2004. “On-line Polylogues: Conversation Structure and Participation Framework in Internet Newsgroups.” Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 115–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meredith, Joanne, and Jonathan Potter. 2014. “Conversation analysis and electronic interactions: Methodological, analytic and technical considerations”. In Innovative methods and technologies for electronic discourse analysis, ed. by H. L. Lim & F. Sudweeks, 370–393. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Muddiman, Ashley. 2017. “Personal and Public Levels of Political Incivility.” International Journal of Communication 11: 3182–3202.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papacharissi, Z. 2004. Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. New Media & Society 6(6). 259–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Persson, Anders. 2019. Framing Social Interaction: Continuities and Cracks in Goffman’s Frame Analysis. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reed, D. 2001.‘Making conversation’: Sequential integrity and the local management of interaction in Internet newsgroups. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 4. IEEE Computer Society.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1990. “On the Organization of Sequences as a Source of “Coherence” in Talk-in-Interaction.” In Conversational Organization and its Developments, 51–78. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinitz, Sarah. 2021. “Kommentarsporet på Facebook er mediernes billigste annonceplads.” [The commentary track on Facebook is the medias’ cheapest commercial site] Altinget.dk. [URL]
Tannen, Deborah. 1993. “Introduction.” In Framing in Discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 3–13. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah, and Cynthia Wallat. [1987] 1993. “Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination/Interview.” Social Psychology Quarterly 50 (2): 205–216. In Framing in Discourse, ed. by Deborah Tannen, 57–76. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Unicode.org. Visited May 2024 at [URL]
van Eck, Christel W., Bob C. Mulder, and Art Dewulf. 2020. “Online Climate Change Polarization: Interactional Framing Analysis of Climate Change Blog Comments.” Science Communication 42 (4): 454–480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegele, M., P. Jost & D. Heinbach. 2018. Journalistic counter-voices in comment sections: Patterns, determinants, and potential consequences of interactive moderation of uncivil user comments. Studies in Communication and Media 7(4). 525–554. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg & Trine Lizette Djurhuus Glud
2025. Framing agency, identity and credibility in court. In Framing in Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 354], ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 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