The notion of framing has become central in the field of argumentation. The question is, however, what we gain from studying the process of argumentation through framing, since framing is itself a broad concept in need of specification. Different traditions understand the term differently, and it is necessary to determine what argumentative forms the concept of framing actually covers. In this paper we argue that framing refers to at least two different argumentative forms. One is an internal definition of the concepts in question; the other is an external shift in the context of the case. In making this argument we combine theories of framing with the classical rhetorical theory of the stases, more precisely status definitio and status translatio. Our focus is primarily theoretical, but we illustrate our points by means of examples taken from public debates on the value of real estate.
Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2011, p. 533-543