Cover not available
Part of
Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 71–91

Chapter 3
Arguments and framing strategies in Italian public discourse about measures to contrast the Covid-19 pandemic

| Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano
| Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milano
| Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, IRCCS, Milano
The Covid-19 pandemic has been described as a creeping crisis, which is a kind of crisis that develops slowly, threatens common values, and is partially or insufficiently addressed by authorities. In order for an event to appear as a “creeping crisis” citizens have to agree that it threatens common and core values. Only when this happens, a response can be organized. This study reports on arguments and framing strategies used by policy makers in Italy to define the virus and thus justify the restrictive measures meant to stop it. Attempts to persuade the population to adopt restrictive measures during the pandemic relied on pragmatic argumentation, in which values such as ‘life’, ‘health’ and ‘essential’ played a significant role.
Keywords: COVID-19, pragmatic argumentation, public policy communication, practical reasoning, values, framing strategies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Italian context
  • 3.Pragmatic argumentation and value-based arguments
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Description of the corpus
    • 4.2Results of the analysis
      • 4.2.1Argument schemes
      • 4.2.2Framing strategies used to describe the virus
      • 4.2.3Framing strategies used to describe the restrictive measures
  • 5.Values in the arguments supporting adherence to restrictive measures
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.03big
References (34)
References
Abel, T., & McQueen, D. (2020). Critical health literacy and the COVID-19 crisis. Health promotion international, 35(6), 1612–1613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arlotti, M., & Ranci, C. (2021). Navigare al buio. Politica e conoscenza nella gestione dell’emergenza Covid-19 nelle residenze per anziani. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 62(1), 67–102.Google Scholar
Boin, A., Ekengren, M., & Rhinard, M. (2020). Hiding in plain sight: Conceptualizing the creeping crisis. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 11(2), 116–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capano, G. (2021). Rincorrere, rincorrere, rincorrere. AntiCovid-19 Italian Style. Rivista di Digital Politics, 1(1), 51–72.Google Scholar
Combei, C. R., Luporini, A., Alaman, A. P., & Turci, M. (2022). In guerra contro il virus invasore: un’analisi critica delle metafore sul Covid-19 nel discorso politico-istituzionale inglese, italiano e spagnolo. In Diversità e Inclusione. Quando le parole sono importanti (pp. 207–226). Meltemi, Milano.Google Scholar
De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information design journal & document design, 13(1), 51–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. (2016). Understanding publics’ perception and behaviors in crisis communication: Effects of crisis news framing and publics’ acquisition, selection, and transmission of information in crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 28(1), 35–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2018). Practical argumentation in the making: Discursive construction of reasons for action. In Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations (pp. 219–241). Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, F. (2014). Manipulating emotions: value-based reasoning and emotive language. Argumentation and advocacy, 51(2), 103–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2010). What we hide in words: Emotive words and persuasive definitions. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(7), 1997–2013. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Management and Healthcare Laboratory (MeS) of the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies & National Agency for Regional Health Services (AGENAS). (2021). [URL] (last accessed April 10, 2024)
Matlock, T., Coe, C., & Westerling, A. L. (2017). Monster wildfires and metaphor in risk communication. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(4), 250–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OECD (2018), OECD Skills Strategy Diagnostic Report: Italy 2017, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI logo.
Olza, I., Koller, V., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Pérez-Sobrino, P., & Semino, E. (2021). The #ReframeCovid initiative: From Twitter to society via metaphor. Metaphor and the Social World, 11(1), 98–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paakkari, L., & Okan, O. (2020). COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem. The Lancet. Public Health, 5(5), e249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palumbo, R., Annarumma, C., Adinolfi, P., Musella, M., & Piscopo, G. (2016). The Italian Health Literacy Project: Insights from the assessment of health literacy skills in Italy. Health Policy, 120(9), 1087–1094. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Passaro, E. (2020). La Retorica Del Contagio Da Boccaccio Al Coronavirus: I Casi Della Peste Del ’300, Del ’500 E Del ’600 Tra Fonti Storiche E Letteratura. DNA – Di Nulla Academia, 1(1), 57–70. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Pelikan, J. M., Rothlin, F., & Ganahl, K. (2012). Comparative report on health literacy in eight EU member states. The European Health Literacy Project, Maastricht.Google Scholar
Pellegrino, G., & Rubin, A. (2020). Annuario Scienza Tecnologia e Società. Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Perelman, C. (1959). Pragmatic Arguments. Philosophy, 34(128), 18–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: la nouvelle rhétorique. Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Sala, M. & Scaglioni, M. (2020). L’altro virus. Comunicazione e disinformazione al tempo del Covid-19. Vita e Pensiero.Google Scholar
Scaccia, C. (2022). An interdiscursive construction: legitimacy and authority in Conte’s first press conferences on Covid-19. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours, (28). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, K., Pelikan, J. M., Röthlin, F., Ganahl, K., Slonska, Z., Doyle, G., … & Brand, H. (2015). Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU). European Journal of Public Health, 25(6), 1053–1058. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, C. (1944). Ethics and language. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Velasco, V., Gragnano, A., Gruppo Regionale Hbsc Lombardia, & Vecchio, L. P. (2021). Health Literacy Levels among Italian Students: Monitoring and Promotion at School. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(19), 9943. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Ventura, S. (2021). La gestione della crisi e il meaning-making. Narrazione e manipolazione nelle conferenze stampa di Giuseppe Conte durante la pandemia del coronavirus. Comunicazione politica, 22(1), 19–46.Google Scholar
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2005). Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D., Atkinson, K., Bench-Capon, T., Wyner, A., & Cartwright, D. (2010). Argumentation in the framework of deliberation dialogue. In C. Bjola, & M. Kornprobst (Eds.), Arguing Global Governance: Agency, Lifeworld and Shared Reasoning (pp. 210–230). Routledge.Google Scholar
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Załęska, M. (2021). Worse the Remedy Than the Disease? Arguments and Values in Controversies about Vaccination Against Covid-19. Roczniki humanistyczne, 69(6), 175–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (2014). Arguing About Values: The Problem of Public Moral Argument. In Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation (pp. 167–177). Springer, Cham. DOI logoGoogle Scholar