Communicative framing in corporate presentations: A linguistic-pragmatic perspective | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2025. № 97. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/97/4

Communicative framing in corporate presentations: A linguistic-pragmatic perspective

The article examines the linguistic-pragmatic aspect of communicative framing in corporate presentations aimed at attracting investment. The relevance of the study lies in the need to identify strategies of speech control and meaning construction employed in institutional communication. The theoretical framework combines the principles of frame semantics, cognitive linguistics, and pragmalinguistics, integrated into a three-level model of framing encompassing the lexical-semantic, cognitive, and communicative levels. This approach enables a comprehensive examination of the ways in which professionally significant information is represented and interpreted within corporate genres. The material for the study comprised 52 English-language investment presentations by leading technology companies, with a total corpus volume of approximately 24,000 words. The analysis was conducted within a linguistic-pragmatic approach to framing, in which a frame is viewed as a structural-discursive unit that organizes content in accordance with the speaker's communicative purpose. The study identified five stable frames: Problem, Solution, Market, Uniqueness, and Social Validation. Each frame performs a specific pragmatic function and is characterized by a distinct set of lexical means and rhetorical devices. The pragmatic purposes established in the research include the formulation of an existing market deficiency, inefficiency, or systemic challenge (Problem); the demonstration of a relevant response to the identified issue (Solution); the presentation of a quantitatively and qualitatively substantiated context for the product's market demand (Market); the justification of the product's exclusivity (Uniqueness); and the demonstration of external recognition and endorsement (Social Validation). The identified lexical means include evaluative vocabulary with negative and positive connotations, action verbs, quantifiers and numerals, first-person plural pronouns, as well as temporal and spatial deixis. The rhetorical devices observed comprise anaphora, antithesis, gradation, isocolon, hyperbole, rhetorical question, comparison, and quotation. The study has established that the sequence of frames (Problem Solution Market Uniqueness Social Validation) constitutes a pragmatically motivated model of argumentation that ensures the step-by-step engagement of the audience and fosters readiness for investment decision-making. The findings refine the understanding of communicative framing in corporate presentations and demonstrate that the effectiveness of this genre is achieved through a consistent set of linguistic-pragmatic strategies aimed at interpretative control of the audience's attention and response. The author declares no conflicts of interests.

Download file
Counter downloads: 3

Keywords

corporate communication, corporate presentation, communicative framing, frame, linguistic-pragmatic analysis

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Malyuga Elena N.RUDN Universitymalyuga-en@rudn.ru
Всего: 1

References

Spratling M. W. Predictive coding as a model of cognition // Cognitive Processing. 2016. № 17. P. 279-305. doi: 10.1007/s10339-016-0765-6.
Hart C. Frames, framing and framing effects in cognitive CDA // Discourse Studies. 2023. № 25 (2). P. 247-258. doi: 10.1177/14614456231155071.
Entman R.M. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm // Journal of Communication. 1993. № 43 (4). P. 51-58. doi: 10.nn/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
Scheufele D.A. Framing as a theory of media effects // Journal of Communication. 1999. № 49 (1). P. 103-122. doi: 10.im/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x.
Fillmore C.J. Frame semantics // Cognitive linguistics: basic readings. Berlin ; New York : De Gruyter Mouton, 2006. P. 373-400. doi: 10.1515/9783110199901.373.
Fillmore C.J. Frame semantics and the nature of language // Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1976. № 280 (1). P. 20-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x.
Fillmore C.J. Encounters with language // Computational Linguistics. 2012. № 38 (4). P. 701-718. doi: 10.1162/COLI_a_00129.
Mohammed S. Inconsistency of translating medical abbreviations and acronyms into the Arabic language // Training, Language and Culture. 2022. № 6 (3). P. 67-77. doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2022-6-3-67-77.
Kabbach A., Ribeyre C, Herbelot A. Butterfly effects in frame semantic parsing: Impact of data processing on model ranking // Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Santa Fe: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018. P. 3158-3169.
Petruck M.R. Frame semantics // Handbook of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2022. P. 592-601. doi: 10.1075/hop.m2.fra1.
Huhn J.M., Potts C.A., Rosenbaum D.A. Cognitive framing in action // Cognition. 2016. № 151. P. 42-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.02.015.
Дружинин А.С., Лаврова Н.А. Почему прошлое ирреально и что ирреального в прошлом: когнитивный аспект типологической взаимосвязи категорий ирреалиса и прошедшего времени глагола // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2024. № 87. С. 23-54. doi: 10.17223/19986645/87/2.
Донскова Ю.В., Курилова А.Д. Семантико-когнитивная репрезентация концепта «болезнь» в современном российском медиапространстве (на примере COVID-19) // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2023. № 83. С. 5-20. doi: 10.17223/19986645/83/1.
Grishechko E.G. (2023). Language and cognition behind simile construction: a Python-powered corpus research // Training, Language and Culture. 2023. № 7 (2). P. 80-92. doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2023-7-2-80-92.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system // Cognitive Science. 1980. № 4 (2). P. 195-208. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4.
Lakoff G. Explaining embodied cognition results // Topics in Cognitive Science. 2012. № 4 (4). P. 773-785. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01222.x.
Leontovich O.A., Kalinin O.I., Ignatenko A. V. Metaphor power and language typology: analysis of correlation on the material of the United Nations Declarations // Training, Language and Culture. 2023. № 7 (2). P. 21-29. doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2023-7-2-21-29.
Гурулева Т.Л., Фесенко О.П. Типологические, этимологические и когнитивные аспекты сопоставления фразеологизмов военной тематики в русском и китайском языках // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2023. № 81. С. 5-29. doi: 10.17223/19986645/81/1.
Tsai S.P. Message framing strategy for brand communication // Journal of Advertising Research. 2007. № 47 (3). P. 364-377. doi: 10.2501/S0021849907070377.
Goffman E. Frame analysis: an essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard University Press, 1974. 586 p.
Киклевич А., Пшибышевский С. Прагматический статус эстетических речевых актов // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2022. № 75. С. 183-198. doi: 10.17223/19986645/75/9.
Piotrovskaya L.A., Trushchelev P.N.Communicating recipient’s emotions: text-triggered interest // Training, Language and Culture. 2022. № 6 (1). P. 60-74. doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2022-6-1-60-74.
Gamson W.A., Modigliani A. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach // American Journal of Sociology. 1989. № 95 (1). P. 1-37. doi: 10.1086/229213.
Tamimy M., Setayesh Zarei L., Khaghaninejad M.S. Collectivism and individualism in US culture: an analysis of attitudes to group work // Training, Language and Culture. 2022. № 6(2). P. 20-34. doi: 10.22363/2521-442X-2022-6-2-20-34.
Kong K. Professional discourse. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2014. 288 p.
Malyuga E.N. Functional approach to professional discourse exploration in linguistics. Singapore : Springer, 2019b. 335 p. doi: 10.1007/978-981-32-9103-4.
Малюга Е.Н., Гришечко E.r. Как построить фундамент успешного научного журнала: опыт Training, Language and Culture // Научный редактор и издатель. 2021. № 6 (1). P. 48-58. doi: 10.24069/2542-0267-2021-1-48-58.
Malyuga E.N. The language of corporate communication: functional, pragmatic and cultural dimensions. Cham : Springer, 2024. 154 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-58905-8.
Малюга Е.Н. Новые тенденции англоязычного научного дискурса: вопросы актуальности исследования и языковой идентичности // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2019. № 58. С. 52-70. doi: 10.17223/19986645/58/4.
Grishechko E.G., Tomalin B. Cognitive engagement in scientific writing: empirical evidence on research data processing variation // Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2025. № 11 (2). P. 54-79. doi: 10.18413/2313-8912-2025-11-2-0-3.
 Communicative framing in corporate presentations: A linguistic-pragmatic perspective | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2025. № 97. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/97/4

Communicative framing in corporate presentations: A linguistic-pragmatic perspective | Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2025. № 97. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/97/4

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 311