Article published In:
Language and Dialogue: Online-First Articles

Dialogic framing in pharmaceutical corporate energy transition strategies

A corpus-based approach

 | Sapienza University of Rome
The study explores dialogical framing as an engagement device in the two genres of corporate reports and corporate websites, by focusing on the nature and extent of dialogicity between companies and stakeholders, crucial to corporate strategies. Today investors and stakeholders increasingly demand greater transparency in accounting for long-term climate risks and opportunities, consequently companies need to rapidly adjust to the global ‘energy transition’, i.e. the shift from fossil-based energy towards renewable energy sources. For this purpose, the study seeks to identify how firms frame their energy transition plans, through dialogical engagement. To do this, three sub-corpora of selected texts were created from two pharmaceutical company websites, which were then comparatively analysed adopting corpus retrieval principles of analysis.
Keywords: corpora, dialogicity, engagement, energy transition, framing, ESG reports
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Aims and research questions
    • 1.2Investigated language features
  • 2.Literature and theoretical frameworks
  • 3.Data sources, corpora and methods
  • 4.Analysis and discussion of the findings
    • 4.1Semantic domains and dialogic frame patterns
    • 4.2The clean-green paradigm
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 January 2025
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00186.inc
References (27)
References
Annesi, Nora, Massimo Battaglia, and Marco Frey. 2021. “Stakeholder Engagement by an Italian Water Utility Company: Insight from Participant Observation of Dialogism.” Utilities Policy 721: 101–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. The Problem of Speech Genres. In Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bondi, Marina. 2018. “Try to Prove Me Wrong: Dialogicity and Audience Involvement in Economics Blogs.” Discourse, Context & Media 241: 33–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016a. “Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres.” English for Specific Purposes 421: 117–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016b. “The Future in Reports: Prediction, Commitment and Legitimization in CSR.” Pragmatics and Society 7(1): 57–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bortree, Denise S., and Trent Seltzer. 2009. “Dialogic Strategies and Outcomes: An Analysis of Environmental Advocacy Groups’ Facebook Profiles.” Public Relations Review 35(3): 317–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavanaugh, Jillian R. 2015. Performativity. Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Lars. T., Mette Morsing, and Ole Thyssen. 2013. “CSR as Aspirational Talk.” Organization 20(3): 372–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23(3): 225–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ettinger, Joshua, and James Painter. 2023. “The Science of Climate Conversations.” Social Media and Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1985. “Frames and the Semantics of Understanding.” Quaderni di Semantica 61: 222–254.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. “Patterns of Engagement: Dialogic Features and L2 Student Writing.” In Analysing Academic Writing: Contextualized Frameworks, ed. by L. Ravelli and R. Ellis, 5–23. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 71: 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Dialogue, Persuasion and Community in Research Writing.” In Dialogicity in Written Specialised Genres, ed. by M. Luz Gil-Salom & C. Soler-Monreal, 1–20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kent, Michael, and Maureen Taylor. 2014. “Dialogic Engagement as a Foundational Concept in the Practice of Public Relations.” Journal of Public Relations Research 261: 384–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Pavel Smrz, Pavel Rychlý, and David Tugwell. 2004. The Sketch Engine. Proc. Euralex, Lorient, France.Google Scholar
Martin, Jim. R., and Peter White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nisbet, Matthew C. 2009. “Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51(2): 12–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2003. Matrix: A Statistical Method and Software Tool for Linguistic Analysis through Corpus Comparison. Ph.D. thesis, Lancaster University.
Schultz, Friederike, Jan Kleinnijenhuis, Dirk Oegema, Sonja Utz, Wouter van Atteveldt. 2012. “Strategic Framing in the BP Crisis: A Semantic Network Analysis of Associative Frames.” Public Relations Review 38(1): 97–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Si, Yutong, Dipa Desai, Diana Bozhilova, Sheila Puffer, and Jennie C. Stephens. 2023. “Fossil Fuel Companies’ Climate Communication Strategies: Industry Messaging on Renewables and Natural Gas.” Energy Research & Social Science 981: 103028. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voloshinov, Valentin N. 1995. Marixism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by L. Matjka and I. R. Titunik. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wirtz, John G., and Thais M. Zimbres. 2018. “A Systematic Analysis of Research Applying ‘Principles of Dialogic Communication’ to Organizational Websites, Blogs, and Social Media: Implications for Theory and Practice.” Journal of Public Relations Research 30(1):1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar