Impact Tool: Sociolinguistic assessment of impact conditions of framing on groups of young speakers in Estonia and Latvia

Dr. Yvonne Bindrim (Estland); Kaspars Zalāns (Latvia), Prof. Stephan Kessler (Baltistik); Prof. Marko Pantermöller (Fennistik)

The Impact Tool occupies a special position in the "New Nationalisms" cluster insofar as it seeks to collect data by objective, sociolinguistic methods. With the generic term "new nationalisms" we describe a conglomerate of statements made through various media channels and in different domains, which is not differentiated in detail in terms of the actors involved and their intentions but which transports disinformation and obscure worldviews that question the legitimacy and meaning of existing state and legal systems. We call individual complexes of expression of this kind ‘delegitimising frames’. The aim of the Impact Tool is to determine whether young people in Estonia and Latvia are influenced by such frames. In this respect, the Impact Tool makes a contribution to framing research.

Our investigation focuses on the degree to which recipients are sensitive to the delegitimising framing of societal forces using mass and social media and the sociolinguistic factors that play a role herein. It would be helpful to have sociolinguistic characteristics on the impact conditions of disinformation or obscurantism to debunk it faster and more reliably. In this context, we would like to interview the Latvian and Estonian younger generations since they mostly use different information channels than the usual mass media. We are not concerned with the Estonia’s or Latvia’s schools as institutions. Still, it seems exciting and convenient to investigate graduating student groups because they represent the future voters and share certain social factors.

Our investigation does not focus on the actors of the framing, their ideology, or their propaganda content, which should be sufficiently well known.

Framing refers to the active process of selectively emphasizing information and positions. Frames are the result of this process. (Matthes 2014: 10f.) Frames consist of frame elements. There are four such elements (Entman 1993: 52):

1. Problem definition / defining problems;
2. causal interpretation / diagnosing causes;
3. moral evaluation / making moral judgments;
4. treatment recommendation / suggesting remedies.

Entman (loc. cit.) says, ‘Framing essentially involves selection and salience. To frame is to select

some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described. (…) Frames, then, define problems — determine what a causal agent is doing with what costs and benefits, usually measured in terms of common cultural values; diagnose causes — identify the forces creating the problem; make moral judgments — evaluate causal agents and their effects; and suggest remedies — offer and justify treatments for the problems and predict their likely effects.’

References

Entman, Robert M. (1993), ‘Framing: towards clarification of a fractured paradigm’, Journal of Communication 43:4, pp. 51–58.

Mathes, Jörg (2014), Framing, Baden-Baden: Nomos. (Konzepte: Ansätze der Medien- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 10.)