This study investigates how media frame a global trend that is complex in nature, emergent in terms of scientific understanding, and has public policy implications: the rapid disappearance of languages. It analyzes how English-language media from 15 western, industrialized countries frame the causes and implications of endangered languages over 35 years (1971–2006) – a time period notable for growing, interdisciplinary concerns over the potential negative impacts of losing the world’s linguistic diversity. The results reveal a media discourse characterized by three complementary frames that are sympathetic to the plight of endangered languages, but that present the problem, its cause, and societal implications in a logical structure that would promote public complacency.
BendixJLieblerCM (1991) Environmental degradation in Brazilian Amazonia: Perspectives in US news media. The Professional Geographer43(4): 474–485.
3.
BennettLWLawrenceRG (1995) News icons and the mainstreaming of social change. Journal of Communication45: 20–39.
4.
BucchiMMazzoliniRG (2007) Big science, little news: Science coverage in the Italian daily press, 1946–1997. In: BauerMBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 53–70.
5.
CappellaJNJamiesonKH (1997) Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
CarrageeKRoefsW (2004) The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication54(2): 214–233.
7.
CreedWEDLangstraatJAScullyMA (2002) A picture of the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods5(1): 34–55.
8.
CrystalD (1997) English as a Global Language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
DixonRMW (1997) The Rise and Fall of Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(3): 51–58.
11.
EntmanRM (2004) Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
FishmanJA (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
13.
FjæstadB (2007) Why journalists report science as they do. In: BauerMBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 123–131.
14.
GamsonWA (1992) Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GamsonWAModiglianiA (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95: 1–37.
16.
GitlinT (1980) The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
GoffmanE (1974) Frame Analysis. New York: Free Press.
18.
HjarvardS (2004) The globalization of language. Nordicom Review25 (September): 75–97.
19.
“Institute says most of world’s tongues likely to fade by 2100” (2003) MSNBC.com, June18. Available at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/ (accessed January 2004).
20.
IyengarS (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21.
IyengarSReevesR (1997) Do the Media Govern? Politicians, Voters, and Reporters in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
22.
KahaneH (1992) Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life, 6th edn.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
23.
KohringMMatthesJ (2002) The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press frame modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science11: 143–154.
24.
KolmerC (2008) Methods of journalism research – Content analysis. In: LoffelholzMWeaverD (eds) Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 117–130.
25.
KosickiG (2003) Mass communications and public opinion. In: MaarekPJWolfsfeldG (eds) Political Communication in a New Era. New York: Routledge, pp. 60–81.
26.
LeeNJMcLeodDMShahDV (2008) Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication Research35 (October): 695–718.
27.
LivingstonSEachusT (1996) Indexing news after the Cold War: Reporting U.S. ties to Latin American paramilitary organizations. Political Communication13: 423–436.
28.
LombardMSnyder-DuchJBrackenCC (2002) Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research28(4): 587–604.
29.
McWhorterJH (2002) The Power of Babel: A Natural History of Language. New York: Times Books.
30.
MaffiL (2001) Introduction: On the interdependence of biological and cultural diversity. In: MaffiL (ed.) On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 1–50.
MarquezH (2003) Rare ethnic languages facing extinction. Inter Press Service, October21. Retrieved January 2004 from the LexisNexis Academic Database.
34.
MatthesJKohringM (2008) The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication58: 258–279.
35.
NacosBLShapiroRYHritzukNChadwickB (2000) New issues and the media: American and German news coverage of the global-warming debate. In: NacosBShapiroRIserniaP (eds) Decisionmaking in a Glass House. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 41–59.
36.
NettleDRomaineS (2000) Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the World’s Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
NisbetMC (2010) Knowledge into action: Framing the debates over climate change and poverty. In: D’AngeloPKuypersJA (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 43–83.
38.
NissaniM (1999) Media coverage of the greenhouse effect. Population and Environment21 (September): 27–33.
39.
OlaussonU (2009) Global warming – global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science18(4): 421–436.
40.
PageSE (2007) The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
PhiloG (2004) The mass production of ignorance: News content and audience understanding. In: PatersonCSrebernyA (eds) International News in the Twenty-first Century. London: John Libbey Publishing, pp. 199–224.
42.
RadfordT (2007) Scheherazade: Telling stories, not educating people. In: BauerMBucchiM (eds) Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations. New York: Routledge, pp. 95–99.
43.
RiffeDLacySFicoFG (1998) Analyzing Media Messages Using Quantitative Content Analysis in Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 104–134.
44.
SanchezJEG (2002) Last of the Kiliwas; Baja Indian band struggles to survive civilization. San Diego Union-Tribune, June13, p. E-1.
45.
SchaeferC (2006) The effects of escalation- vs. de-escalation-oriented conflict coverage on the evaluation of military measures. Conflict & Communication Online5(1): 1–17.
46.
Skutnabb-KangasTMaffiLHarmonD (2003) Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth’s Linguistic, Cultural and Biological Diversity. Paris: UNESCO.
47.
SnowDABenfordRD (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In: MorrisAMcClurg MuellerC (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 133–155.
48.
SnowDABenfordRD (1998) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Network1: 197–217.
49.
TuchmanG (1978) Making News. New York: Free Press.
50.
UNESCO (2002) Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger of Disappearing. Paris: UNESCO.
51.
UngarS (1998) Bringing the issue back in: Comparing the marketability of the ozone hole and global warming. Social Problems45 (November): 510–527.
52.
Van GorpB (2010) Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. In: D’AngeloPKuypersJA (eds) Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, pp. 84–109.
53.
WilliamsJ (2000) The phenomenology of global warming: The role of proposed solutions as competitive factors in the public arenas of discourse. Human Ecology Review7(2): 63–72.
54.
WolfsfeldG (2004) Media and the Path to Peace. New York: Cambridge University Press.
55.
YangJH (2004) Constraints on environmental news production in the U.S.: Interviews with American journalists. Journal of International and Area Studies11(2): 89–105.
56.
ZierhoferW (1999) The “dying forest,” a concept and its immunization: The treatment of an environmental problem by science and the media. Revue Suisse de Sociologie25(1): 33–59.
