Framing environmental issues. Force dynamics and cognitive semantics in pharmaceutical corporate reports

2.1 Cognitive linguistics and construal in ESG discourse

This study is situated within the framework of cognitive linguistics, focusing on “construal” – the way linguistic choices shape the conceptualization of a given “scene”, guiding the interpretation of discourse and influencing readers’ cognitive representations. Scholars such as Langacker (1987, 1991, 2007, 2008), Talmy (1988, 1998, 2000), Croft and Cruse (2004), and Ullman (2017) have extensively examined how linguistic structures impose specific perspectives on events. As Langacker (2008: 55) states, “an expression’s meaning is not just the conceptual content it evokes – equally important is how that content is construed”. This notion aligns with framing theory, which Fillmore (1975: 124) defines as the linguistic choices that activate specific mental models to structure an audience’s understanding of events. Frames function as cognitive shortcuts that guide interpretation and shape discourse reception (Croft and Cruse 2004; Lakoff 2001).

Within the context of ESG discourse, framing is particularly salient, often realized through conceptual metaphors that influence how sustainability and environmental responsibility are perceived (Larson 2011; Milne et al. 2006). These cognitive tools in corporate reporting not only illustrate environmental initiatives but also shape stakeholder perceptions. One especially effective metaphor is that of the “journey” (Milne et al. 2006), which presents sustainability as an ongoing process of growth and progress toward long-term goals. This imagery helps frame sustainability as a gradual and evolving effort, often making it more relatable and less urgent.

Another widely adopted framework in ESG discourse analysis is Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), particularly in studies focusing on evaluation, corporate credibility, and sustainability narratives (Fontaine and Li 2023; Li 2024; Piga 2023). Within SFL, the Appraisal Theory (Martin and White 2005) has been applied to analyze how companies construct credibility through lexical and grammatical choices, particularly focusing on how linguistic strategies are employed to convey environmental responsibility and shape a positive corporate image in sustainability reports (Cangero 2024). This includes the strategic use of positive semantic prosody and engagement devices to reinforce companies’ ecological commitment. In this regard, Fuoli (2012) explores evaluative language and trust-building devices in corporate sustainability reports, highlighting how these linguistic tools are used to establish trust and enhance the company’s relationship with its audience.

In addition to framing and evaluation strategies, Force Dynamics (Talmy 1988, 2000), rooted in cognitive linguistics, provides a cognitive-linguistic model for analyzing causal and counterforce relations in discourse. FD has been applied to modality, argumentation, and stance-taking (Sweetser 1990; Verhagen 2005) and to resistance and persistence in media and political discourse (Hart 2011, 2017). These studies show that force-dynamic structures shape how entities are positioned in relation to external pressures.

Despite FD’s relevance to corporate discourse, its application to ESG reporting remains underexplored. Since ESG reports describe corporate efforts to mitigate environmental impact, counter external constraints, and sustain long-term commitments, the force-dynamic model provides a valuable framework for analyzing how these processes are linguistically constructed. By combining Force Dynamics with existing approaches to framing and evaluation, this study addresses this gap by applying FD theory to ESG reports in the pharmaceutical sector, examining how specific lexical and grammatical choices shape the representation of corporate environmental action. This integrated approach offers insights into the rhetorical construction of environmental responsibility in a sector where credibility and responsibility are key communicative concerns.

2.2 Force dynamics

Leonard Talmy’s claim that “force dynamics figures significantly in language structure” (1988: 49) prompted us to focus on this specific framing. As a generalization of the linguistic notion of causation, Force Dynamics (henceforth FD) constructs a scene around an interaction of forces, considering both the participants in this exchange and their prominent force-related traits. Talmy specifically identifies two force-exerting “entities”:

One force-exerting entity is singled out for focal attention – the salient issue in the interaction is whether this entity is able to manifest its force tendency or, on the contrary, is overcome. The second force entity, correlatively, is considered for the effect that it has on the first, effectively overcoming it or not. Borrowing the terms from physiology where they refer to the opposing members of certain muscle pairs, I call the focal force entity the Agonist and the force element that opposes it the Antagonist (1998: 53).^[1]

In FD schematizations, the Agonist is always central. This centrality should not be understood in grammatical or lexical-syntactic terms, as the Agonist is neither linked to specific parts of speech nor to thematic roles. Additionally, the opposition between Agonist and Antagonist can shift within and across sentences, sometimes multiple times. The key factor distinguishing the Agonist and ensuring its central role is an intrinsic force tendency that the Antagonist lacks. According to Talmy’s model, the Antagonist serves as an opposing counterpart to the Agonist, and the outcome of their interaction depends on their relative strengths. Figure 1 provides an overview of these fundamental FD concepts, and the symbols used to represent them.

Figure 1:

Fundamental terminology and symbols for Force Dynamics (FD).

Four basic force-dynamic patterns (henceforth FDP) can be identified based on the Agonist’s tendency and the balance of strengths:

In (a), for example, an Agonist with an intrinsic tendency towards rest is clashing with a stronger Antagonist, resulting in action (the ball (•) kept rolling (–>–) because of the wind (+) blowing on it). Talmy notes that laterality is irrelevant in FD representations, meaning that FDP schemas can be represented either left to right or vice versa. We use UPPERCASE to differentiate an FDP from the lexico-grammatical structures that create the construal. For example, in (b) “The shed kept standing despite the gale wind blowing against it”, the DESPITE FDP is evoked by the despite construal. This graphic distinction is useful because an FDP can be triggered by different lexico-grammatical or syntactic constructions.

Talmy further categorizes FD interactions into Steady-state and Shifting patterns. The former represents the scenario just discussed, where the force impingement remains constant, while the latter involves changes in state, such as the introduction or removal of the Antagonist force (shift in state), or shifts in the balance of strengths.

Beyond the basic pattern, Talmy introduces a more complex FD configuration called “the divided self”, where “a basic FDP, applied in this case to intra-psychological force-like urges” (Talmy 2000: 69), precedes the external action and takes part in the creation of the forces involved. Talmy uses this internal force opposition to discuss psychological internal drive when “there is one part of the self that wants to perform a certain act and another part that wants that not to happen” (Talmy 2000: 69). However, we argue that this schematisation can be extended to understand how pharmaceutical companies frame their decision-making processes and consequent actions, particularly when they present internal conflicts between economic objectives and ethical or environmental responsibilities.

By analysing ESG discourse as a meaning-making process, we align with the notion of “psychological” not as referring to an individual’s mind but as a form of “collective psyche”. This approach emphasises the discursive image emerging from the texts rather than the empirical sender of the message. Consequently, we adopt the semiotic notion of “enunciator”, to underscore our focus on the text as enunciation – the linguistic act through which abstract values and ideas are manifested in discourse. While the concept shares similarities with the cognitive-linguistic notion of “conceptualizer” (Langacker 2008), “enunciator” emphasizes the textual and semiotic construction of the authorial voice, drawing on insights from discourse analysis and semiotics (Greimas and Courtés 2007)^[2] Besides the message, the enunciator projects an image of itself and of the recipient, the enunciatee, into the discourse. In the act of reception, the enunciatee similarly constructs an image of the enunciator based on textual cues. Enunciator and enunciatee thus function as “textual avatars” or actants – abstract semiotic roles that, like empty slots, can be discursively realised in various ways.

5.1 Continue to

A pivotal role in encoding FD relations is played by the frequently occurring trigger word continue, mainly in the form of the verbal group complex continue to + verbal group (VG), which accounts for 78 % of all occurrences.

Table 2 summarises the quantitative data for continue and its most frequent construction continue to in the ESG corpus. As shown, nearly 80 % of all continue instances (including the construct continue to) co-occur with the first-person plural pronouns (we/our/us), underscoring the strategic use of this construction to frame the company’s actions as persistent. The markedly higher relative frequency compared to the RC (537 %) confirms its strong function in ESG discourse.

In Talmy’s terms, continue creates a FD pattern of the DESPITE type (Figure 2c), that is a situation where an expected force or obstacle is present but does not prevent a particular outcome. It highlights how an action or result occurs in spite of opposing forces or constraints (Figure 3). However, unlike the despite construction, which requires an explicit Antagonist, continue implies a constant force application while allowing the enunciator to omit the Antagonist. This is a case that Talmy (1998: 61) contemplates when he explains that not all the factors in an FDP must be mentioned explicitly:

All of the interrelated factors in any FDP are necessarily co-present wherever that pattern is involved. But a sentence expressing that pattern can pick out different subsets of the factors for explicit reference leaving the remainder unmentioned.

Figure 2:

Basic steady-state FDPs (Talmy 2000: 415). (a) The ball kept rolling because of the wind blowing on it. (b) The shed kept standing despite the gale wind blowing against it. (c) The ball kept rolling despite the stiff grass. (d) The log kept lying on the incline because of the ridge there.

Figure 3:

Shift-in-state FDPs (Talmy 2000: 418). (a) The ball’s hitting it made the lamp topple from the table. (b) The water’s dripping on it made the fire die down. (c) The plug’s coming loose let the water flow from the tank. (d) The stirring rod’s breaking let the particles settle.

Considering the widespread use of the DESPITE FDP, it is striking that despite as a word appears only 22 times in the whole corpus. We hypothesise that using continue rather than despite allows the enunciator to foreground its efforts, concealing the fact that the Antagonist forces are often part of the pharmaceutical companies themselves:

Conversely, using despite would require mentioning the opposing force(s) explicitly. By leaving the Antagonist slot empty, as indicated by a dashed line in Figure 4, the opposing force is backgrounded. This results in a DESPITE construal that emphasises the enunciator’s tendency towards action (>) and a positive balance of strength (+), thereby highlighting the company’s determination to operate despite some adverse forces.

Figure 4:

Foregrounding of the Agonist’s role in the continue to construction.

By opting for hypotactic verbal group complexes (e.g., we continue to investigate/we continue to pursue/we continue to evaluate) rather than verbal group simplexes (e.g., we investigate/we pursue/we evaluate), the enunciator constructs a durative “time phase” (Halliday and Matthiessen 2007: 511–512). As examples 1–3 show, this type of construal exploits the semantic contribution of the primary verb continue by adding a durative aspect to the action described by the secondary verb, thereby underlining the ongoing commitment of the company in its efforts. The same framing effect is equally obtained with the adjectival form continued:

In the foregoing excerpt, multiple triggers come into play to achieve an FD framing effect: the initial sentence exhibits a sequence of recurring FD patterns of the DESPITE type triggered both grammatically (despite) and lexically (continued, impacting). The meaning construed is the value of resilience attributed to the company and made explicit in the subsequent sentence, which lexicalises the FD frame by first restating the efforts and then mentioning resilience itself – the ability to adapt and stand despite difficulties.

5.2 Commit

The pervasive use of commit and commitment is another revealing example of FD framing strategically evoked to build a reliable image of pharmaceutical companies. The quantitative analysis shows an overwhelming presence of commit* compared to the RC, and 17 times more frequent (Table 3).

The semantic complexity of commit* enables the enunciator to construe a frame for building trust by operating on three distinct but interconnected semantic levels discussed below.

5.2.3 “Interpersonal” layer of the commitment construal

Quantitative analysis of the corpus has revealed a notable preference for the term commit over try and attempt in ESG reports, highlighting a significant distinction in how commitment is framed. Specifically, commit appears frequently, while try and attempt are sparse, with only two and one occurrences, respectively. This suggests that the enunciator aims to utilize the TRY TO pattern but opts to use commit* as the FD trigger instead. This observation is supported by the fact that, even when combining the occurrences of commit (0.008 %), try (0.05 %), and attempt (0.013 %) in the reference corpus, they collectively account for only about half the occurrences of commit in ESG reports (0.071 % vs. 0.14 %). This marked preference for commit can be attributed to an additional semantic layer of the frame it evokes, which is absent in try. As just highlighted, quantitative analysis of the corpus suggests that the enunciator almost exclusively employs commit as a trigger word for the TRY TO force-dynamic pattern.

To clarify, while the terms commit, try, and attempt are not synonymous, their comparative analysis in this study is justified by the communicative intent behind their use. Unlike try and attempt, which denote uncertainty regarding the outcome, commit conveys a strong intention and a declared responsibility to achieve a goal. This linguistic choice reinforces the company’s image of determination and reliability in addressing environmental challenges. Specifically, commit is interpersonally tuned, engaging the enunciatee with the implicit promise contained in the act of commitment. According to Brandt’s (1992: 19) semiotic analysis, a promise involves a pathway consisting of four phases:

As Figure 5 illustrates, in an ideal-type scenario, following the promisor’s (S1) offer of a pledge (phase 1), the promisee (S2) responds to the promisor with a sign of acceptance and expectation, establishing trust. Consequently, the act of promising inherently fosters the development of trust (phase 2). Only then come the phases of realisation (phase 3) and evaluation of the promise (phase 4), although explicit mention of all these phases is not always necessary. The TRY TO perspective of commitment in ESG enunciation facilitates the backgrounding of outcomes through omission, a cognitive strategy known as “gapping”, which is part of the “window of attention” pattern (Evans and Green 2006: 527). This concept refers to the cognitive process where an enunciator selectively focuses the audience’s attention on specific aspects of a situation while deliberately ignoring or omitting others. By strategically “windowing” certain elements of the “scene” and “gapping” others, the enunciator can reap the benefits of making a promise, such as increased trust from the enunciatee, without fully addressing all potential outcomes or implications.

Figure 5:

Promise pathway (Brandt 1992: 20, our translation).

5.3 The force of commitment

An additional aspect of the use of commit* which reinforces the hypotheses presented above warrants further discussion. The following chart illustrates the distribution of various forms of commit* within the ESG corpus (Table 4):

What immediately stands out is that only 9 % of all occurrences are in the active verbal form of commit, while 59 % are nominalisations, and the remaining 32 % are in the passive predicative constructions (primarily be committed, which accounts for 28 %). This distribution may be partly due to the typical construction of the commit verbal process, which, as noted in the dictionary definition mentioned above, often appears in the passive voice. Even after considering this, the quantitative analysis reveals an unusually high prevalence of be committed compared to commit. This trend persists, albeit to lesser extent, even when applying the “rough filter” of to.

Table 5 shows that the construction be committed (including the most frequently used we are committed) is used significantly more frequently in the ESG corpus than in the reference corpus. This trend also applies to the specific construction be committed to.

Moreover, out of the 39 instances of commit VG used in the active voice, only 5 occur in the present tense. This raises the question: why does the enunciator significantly favour the COMMITMENT framing while almost entirely avoiding the phrase “we commit”, which appears in only 1 % of occurrences? One possible explanation may be found in the pragmatic meanings conveyed by the COMMIT construal and the varying force of the speech acts involved. We suggest that the ESG enunciator seeks to leverage the force of an illocutionary act without fully committing to a performative act. According to Austin (1962: 6), when an utterance that uses a verb in the first-person singular, present active tense, and performs the illocutionary act specified by the verb, it can be termed a performative utterance. However, in ESG reports, the commit construal rarely meets these criteria, as most occurrences appear in passive predicative constructions (be committed) rather than in the form of an explicit first-person performative (we commit). This structural preference suggests an attempt to convey commitment while mitigating the level of direct self-attribution of agency. Instances of such performative utterances remain exceedingly rare:

Commit is very seldom used in a performative utterance (i.e., as a true promise, in the first-person present tense and using an explicitly performative construction). In the overwhelming majority of cases, the enunciator describes a commitment that is already established (we are committed/our commitment). While these statements carry similar semantic strength, they function as declarative utterances rather than performative acts. This aligns with Brandt’s (1992: 19) analysis of a promise:

The performative requires the absence of any rhetoric. ‘P’ has exactly the meaning that ‘P’ is supposed to have. In ‘I declare the meeting open’, the verb is indispensable. […] When I say, ‘I promise…’, I am saying that this is a promise, that a promise is being made here and now. Perhaps this is why we do not say, ‘Here and now, I promise’ […] By saying, ‘Today I swear’, I am not swearing; I am describing what I am doing today. I am stating.^[7]

According to Austin (1962: 6), performative utterances typically involve the first-person singular, as in the case of “I promise” or “I apologize,” where the utterance itself constitutes the performance of the act. However, in business discourse, instantiated here in pharmaceutical discourse, the first-person plural is more commonly used. While this may not align with Austin’s original examples, the use of “we commit” or “we promise” still carries a performative dimension, expressing the collective commitment of an organization. This plural form serves as a conventional means of conveying corporate responsibility and collective action. It allows companies to frame their commitments as institutional rather than personal, maintaining the performative effect described by Austin while adapting it to the corporate context.

If performativity does not occur in similar situations, it becomes even clearer when the enunciator makes claims about the past. For example:

In other words, phrases like “we are committed”, “our commitment”, and even “we (have) committed” merely describe the present or past state of affairs. Only “we commit” carries the full force of a performative speech act, yet the enunciator appears to avoid this phrasing as much as possible. This avoidance does not imply that the claims about commitment are less valid or untrue, as they retain all the semantic force of the term. Instead, there is a shift in focus – what we might describe as a backwards perspective, from which the promise is presented as already having been made. This framing schema is similar to the one observed in the discussion of the TRY TO construal and allows the enunciator to present the enunciatee with the fait accompli – “we are [already] committed” or “we have [already] committed” – rather than performing the actual promise. Referring to Brandt’s diagram (Figure 5), it becomes clear that this strategy assumes the promisee’s trust, allowing the enunciator to bypass phase (2) of the promise, where trust is typically established. Consequently, the company can benefit from the “trust surplus” associated with commitment, without performing the formal speech act, which would necessitate “a sign of acceptation and expectations” in Brandt’s terms, achievable only with a present tense, performative “we commit”. To some extent, the enunciator is – we might say – forcing trust or, more precisely, constructing a frame where trust is presumed to already exist.

In summary, the durative aspect of commit* fosters trust by emphasizing constancy and reliability, while the perspectival shift associated with the term redirects cognitive focus from the action’s results to the intention or willingness to act. Additionally, on an interpersonal level, commit* carries an implicit promise, imbuing the statement with a sense of performativity, even though true performative acts are often avoided by skipping the initial phase and presuming trust.

6.1 Internal division of the corporate self

According to Talmy (2000: 71, 73),

the psychological component is normally included and understood as the factor that renders the [man] a stronger Agonist able to withstand the [crowd]. It accomplishes this by maintaining the expenditure of effort, that is, by a continuously renewed exertion, in which a goal-oriented part of the psyche overcomes a repose-oriented part so as to generate the output of energy […]. A more peripheral part of the [psyche] overcomes a more central part’s intrinsic repose to animate the otherwise inert [physical] component into overt force manifestation against a further external force entity.^[8]

Aside from the references to a human individual enclosed in brackets, this definition describes a framing schema found during our exploration of highly recurrent FD activators, searching for more complex patterns beyond the basic ones. Some of those involving commit and continue, have already been examined, while other statistically significant trigger words will be discussed in this section.

The first component of a psychological FD schema is the separation of the self into a passive part – which is often left implicit and tends towards stasis and the preservation of the status quo – and an active, dynamic part of the self, which is ready for action and frequently foregrounded. The second component is a two-phase structure in which (1) the two internal forces clash, and the resultant is then (2) directed outwards, against an additional external force.

In (13), We feel…duty creates an internalisation of an external drive to action. On the one hand, it conceals the fact that this duty actually originates from the public or stakeholders, if not from an actual regulatory requirement. On the other hand, it evokes a psychological force-dynamic pattern (henceforth PsFDP), creating a state of divided self, where the force entity belonging to the enunciator is construed as having both central and peripheral parts, each acting in different roles. As a result, the enunciator frames its actions as caused by an internal, self-directed force, in a pattern where the Antagonist entity is a part of the divided self and compels the inactive Agonist into action. As Talmy (2000: 71) notes when discussing the psychological FD pattern:

This Antagonist represents a sense of responsibility or propriety and appears as an internalization of external social values. In effect, perhaps, a FD opposition originating between the self and the surroundings seems here to be introjected into an opposition between parts of the self.

In (14) both we believe and responsibility frame a push that comes from – as Talmy puts it – “external social values” as an internal drive. The construction evokes a frame where the enunciator gathers internal forces to counter an external one (to protect the planet). Moreover, this strategy also serves to disguise the fact that what should be the external force in the FD pattern is actually another internal force ( our impact on the environment).

Rather than reflecting a true corporate split self, this strategy suggests a reframing of forces, where external pressures are internalized as corporate values, and corporate actions are externalized as responses to external demand.

Likewise, the “protracted effort” framing analysed above can be seen as part of a psychological FD pattern, where the company spurs itself into action and improvement. Adding a further layer of complexity to the commitment construal, one may note that a commitment is essentially a self-directed force “in which a goal-oriented part of the psyche overcomes a repose-oriented part so as to generate the output of energy” (Talmy 2000: 71), i.e., a PsFDP of the EXERT as depicted in Figure 6:

Figure 6:

The EXERT FDP (Talmy 2000: 431). ^aVP stands or Verbal Phrase.

For instance, in (15) the commitment can be schematised as a first phase, in which one part of the self impinges on another (i.e., we applied a force to ourselves):

Thus, with the lens of psychological FD, we can gain further insight into the “prolonged effort” frame, which not only underlines the constant expenditure of energy, but also implies that this energy is necessary to oppose the other internal force – the lazy one – that is often omitted or backgrounded, since the enunciator does not wish to stress the fact that it belongs to the company itself.

As illustrated in Figure 7 below, the exertion in PHASE 1 results in an Agonist that has overcome internal attrition and has now progressed to PHASE 2 with an acquired tendency for action. This resulting force can then be directed towards solving external problems (to ensure…)

Figure 7:

FD schematization of example (15).

The two-phase structure of Talmy’s psychological FD schematisation^[9] is even more apparent in (16) below:

Since corporate processes are internal forces, this is a clear instance of a divided self. In the first phase, an internal exertion of forces, lexicalised by help, results in an ability to oppose an external antagonist (reduce gas emissions). Unlike example (15), where the outcome (whether real or expected) was foregrounded in the initial position through topicalisation, example (16) frames the situation as two consecutive phases: (PHASE 1) new processes help us → (PHASE 2) we use that resultant force to fight against gas emissions. This example illustrates a recurring schema in ESG discourse, where the aggregation of internal forces is directed towards addressing environmental challenges.

While identifying the individual entities involved in an FDP is useful, increasing sentence complexity can lead to a proliferation of entities, making coherent FD schematisation challenging. Therefore, it is necessary to use entity clusters, which group together all the FD entities belonging to the same category, as exemplified through the analysis of (17) below.

The sentence involves seven entities exerting forces:

1. Genetically modified crops

2. Farmers

3. Productivity

4. Difficult growing conditions

5. Harvests

6. Pests/weeds

7. Natural resources

These entities can be grouped into four clusters: (1 = E) belongs to the enunciator (Company2), (2 = S), (3 = S), (5 = S) refer to Company2’s stakeholders, namely the farmers; (4 = O) and (6 = O) are framed as part of the same cluster of forces opposing the farmers. Finally, (7 = N) introduces a fourth cluster, including only one entity: natural resources.

E, S, O, and N are typical entity clusters in ESG environmental discourse. This clustering helps identify logical connections between basic FD patterns by grouping the force-exerting entities according to their allegiance, as assigned by the framing strategy. Interestingly, the E cluster also includes the company’s partners, associated groups, institutions, and collaborative processes, accounting for the constant reference to collaboration, help, and so on, which usually construe a divided-self pattern, In other words, corporate partnerships not only evoke Talmy’s HELP FDP – i.e., Antagonist that removes obstacles – but also create a psychological two-phase structure, thus participating in the perspectival shift already discussed.

Here, the initial prepositional phrase functions as an adverbial, introducing two force-exerting entities through lexicalisation (collaboration = HELP FDP). The first coordinate main clause expounds the HELP FDP lexicalised in collaboration, reinforcing the frame and assigning the active role of helper to the enunciator (we are helping). The second coordinate clause highlights that the role of the helper is often framed into the internal phase of exertion. In this example, the collaboration is part of the internal phase pertaining to the commitment, i.e., to the psychological exertion compound which will then be directed towards the external force, here lexicalised as (sustainable) impact. While this instance has been interpreted primarily as an example of the “removal of obstacle” pattern typical of Talmy’s HELP FDP, it is worth noting that in ESG discourse, helping may also reflect a “pushing-like” construal – where the enunciator actively supports or facilitates the Agonist’s progression toward a goal. This dual reading reflects the flexible rhetorical use of HELP FDPs in corporate communication, where both the alleviation of external constraints and the positive reinforcement of stakeholder action may coexist.

In ESG discourse, the internal forces in the cluster can belong to the company itself or be activated by an external catalyst (partner), but the psychological framing device remains the same:

Even though the enunciator and the partners are separate entities, if we consider them as belonging to the same cluster (E), the construal is identical to a PsFDP. What is happening is precisely framed as “a more peripheral part [of the psyche] overcomes a more central part’s intrinsic repose to animate the otherwise inert [physical] component into overt force manifestation against a further external force entity” (Talmy 2000: 73). In this scenario, the partners help the peripheral part of the company’s self to overcome its central, less active component which would tend towards stasis. The construal emphasizes the role of the external partners not just as co-agents, but as catalysts that enable the enunciator (E) to act, especially when analysed through Talmy’s psychological force-dynamic schema. In this light, the action is framed less as equal cooperation and more as the activation of the enunciator’s potential through external support, resembling a PsFDP scenario where the peripheral component gains enough momentum to overcome inertia.

Table 6 provides an overview of the PsFDP in ESG reports, with notable examples relating to environmental discourse and their relative frequency compared to the RC.

The psychological structure can be employed to implement complex framing strategies, such as the one illustrated in example (17) discussed above, here (20) annotated with FD entities (1–7) and FD patterns (a–d):

As shown in Figure 8a below, this sentence features a multi-layered structure of intertwining FDPs activated by specific FDP trigger words. The verbs help and protect, along with the preposition despite, facilitate the identification of three main FD patterns involving six entities exerting forces. However, the concept of ‘help’ can be interpreted in multiple ways within the FD framework. While the present analysis adheres to Talmy’s schematization, primarily framing HELP as the Antagonist removing an opposing force, it is also possible to view it as a pushing-like action, where the Antagonist supports the Agonist’s progress. Both interpretations are valid and may coexist, reflecting the complex interplay of forces in the discourse.

Figure 8:

Force-dynamic structure of example (20), showing layered interactions in environmental discourse. (a) FD schematization of the HELP interaction and related patterns (DESPITE and PROTECT), highlighting the enunciator’s role in shifting the balance of forces. (b) Semantic ambiguity created by the non-finite clause while consuming fewer natural resources, which can refer to different parts of the preceding discourse.

The primary message conveyed, corresponding to the main clause (a), is E HELPS S. As illustrated in Figure 8a, Talmy’s framework depicts this HELP FD interaction as the Antagonist removing an opposing force. This interaction (a) is followed by a specification that answers “help to do what”. To interpret this second FD pattern (b), consider the subordinate clause as zooming in on the circle representing the Agonist farmers. This allows for the analysis of what Talmy (2000: 54) refers to as the “Agonist’s intrinsic force tendency towards action”, represented by a (>). This tendency results from the clash of forces depicted in (b), an FD schema of the DESPITE type where the Agonist is the stronger entity. However, this scenario remains hypothetical without the HELP provided by the enunciator, as described in the main clause (a). Specifically, the help is aimed at enhancing the Antagonist’s capacity to overcome challenges and achieve outcomes. Finally, a third layer is added by specifying how the help is provided (c). Notably, protect involves three participants (1/2, 5 and 6), a scenario not directly covered by Talmy’s FD schemas. This can still be explained in terms of FD patterns by dividing the interaction into different phases based on “the location along the temporal sequence at which focal attention is placed” (Talmy 2000: 73). Here, the focus is on the present and future (the help and its expected effects), while the past is left implicit. As shown in Figure 8a, the implied pre-existing conditions suggest that pests and weeds would otherwise undermine harvests. The enunciator’s intervention (HELP, interaction a) shifts the balance of strengths (+) from the Antagonist to the Agonist, changing the resultant force interaction from rest to action, thus aligning with the Agonist/stakeholder’s tendency. Consequently, protect creates an overarching narrative that unfolds over time, encompassing all the previous FD patterns and positioning the enunciator as the agent of a shifted balance of forces that enables the stakeholders to achieve their goals. Finally, (d) introduces a fourth FD layer: the non-finite clause following while can refer to any of the previous clauses: (a), (b), or (c). This creates ambiguity in the interpretation, as the ecological benefits mentioned earlier can be interpreted as valuable for both E and S, depending on the reading. Figure 8b displays these different possible interpretations.

Specifically, (a + d) attributes the value of environmental protection to the enunciator, (b + d) assigns it to the stakeholders and (c + d) to both. Therefore, a synergy between syntax and FD construal is employed to align E with S, potentially supporting a more effective trust-building strategy. In summary, this construal aims to position the stakeholders in the Enunciator’s role, without explicitly stating “we are on the same side”.

6.2 External catalysts and the framing of internal exertion

The following examples illustrate a construal strategy that shifts the reader’s perspective and diverts attention from inconvenient truths by portraying internal effort as driven by external forces. This is evident in (21) below:

Several preliminary considerations are necessary to frame the analysis. Firstly, the term partnership clearly lexicalizes the HELP FD pattern. Secondly, this schema implies multiple phases as suggested by the durative aspect of the actions described (the ongoing inspiration and the resulting reduction). Finally, due to its significance as an FD trigger, impact warrants specific attention (Table 7).

Being ten times more common in the ESG corpus than in the RC, the numeric relevance of impact should not be overlooked. Approximately one-third of its occurrences are in sentences containing the string environ*, with the collocation environmental impact appearing 74 times. There is no doubt that impact represents the lexicalisation of an FDP, defined as follows:

the act of an object hitting another; a: an impinging or striking especially of one body against another; b: a forceful contact or onset (Merriam-Webster Dictionary).^[10]

Even in its metaphorical use, impact retains most of its physical connotation. According to the definition of the word and Talmy’s terminology, the most immediate FD schematisation should be a shifting-state FD pattern of the MAKE type, where an Antagonist enters the state of impingement, altering the state of the Agonist away from its original tendency (Figure 9).

Figure 9:

FDP for impact (Talmy 2000: 418).

On closer inspection, environmental impact is not a sudden blow or an instantaneous forceful impulse but rather a gradual, long-term damaging force. Thus, it is schematised as a steady-state BECAUSE OF pattern, i.e. the environment changes BECAUSE OF human practices (Figure 10).

Figure 10:

FDP for environmental impact.

Returning to the analysis of example (21), the externally catalyzed divided self can easily be identified, as the partner helps the company initiate a reduction in environmental impact. The sentence also illustrates a continuously renewed exertion, representing a prototypical psychological FD pattern. In the first phase, a goal-oriented part of the psyche overcomes a repose-oriented part generating energy. In the second phase, this resulting energy is directed against a force presented as external: the environmental impact of our lab practices (Figure 11).

Figure 11:

FD schematization of example (21).

Framing the situation this way allows the company to foreground the internal phase, highlighting the proactiveness and inspired action while downplaying its own role as the Antagonist. In other words, the psychological FDP construes a situation where the energy resulting from the internal force components is directed towards an external force entity. In this case, however, the external force slot is occupied by the company’s own impact (our lab practices). Moreover, inspire suggests future prospects rather than present results. In Talmy’s terms, this shifts focal attention to the future phase, obscuring the implication of reducing: that in the present/past the environmental impact might be/have been too high. Thus, the emphasis is on the partnership and the reduction rather than the ongoing (albeit reduced) impact. Three temporal phases are described, but the specific framing allows the enunciator to avoid focusing on phases that cast a negative light on itself, particularly the first phase:

1. Our practices might have had a significant environmental impact (initial phase is gapped, only implied)

2. [NPO name] helped us overcome our stasis. The successful action is attributed to the (constant) force coming from their help (steady-state FD) (foregrounded psychological exertion)

3. Continued inspiration to reduce environmental impact (external Antagonist which is actually the company itself, backgrounded by the FD structure)

A second example of a catalyst framing device can be found in (22):

A first phase involving the mobilization of internal forces, namely a lexicalised HELP FDP (partners), is followed by the redirection of the resulting energy towards an external force entity, i.e., the environmental impact. Notably, this two-phase framing of the divided self is reinforced by an explicit reference to the result of the first FD schema: Talmy’s internal phase, referred to as EXERTION, is framed as a value change. This value change is rhetorically framed as an autonomous agent within the ensuing clash of forces, signalled by the highly recurrent FD trigger word minimize. Indeed, the analysis of its occurrences confirms its strong connection to environmental issues (Table 8).

More than 70 % of the occurrences of minimize (37 out of 50) are found in sections relating to the environment. The use of minimize can be analysed through Talmy’s HINDER FDP, where one entity exerts a force that obstructs or impedes the actions or goals of another entity. This pattern is part of a specific series of schemas associated with a weaker Antagonist, which Talmy relates to the DESPITE pattern (Figure 12).

Figure 12:

The HINDER FDP.

This pattern is also construed by reduce, which is more common than minimize but has a similarly high relative frequency compared to the RC. However, the use of minimize adds the implication that the enunciator is exerting maximal effort, suggesting that minimizing the impact requires the utmost exertion. Considering all this, the full FD schema of the sentence in (22) is as follows (Figure 13)

Figure 13:

FD schematization of example (22).

Remarkably, the lexicalisation of impact construes a backgrounded FDP with an unnamed Antagonist, a gapping device the enunciator uses to distance itself from its actions. This becomes evident when compared to (6) and (14), where the enunciator’s role as Antagonist is explicitly windowed through expressions such as our impact.

6.3 Intra-company divided self

The two-phase perspectival strategy is also used in intra-company divided-self framing:

In this example, the Agonist’s and Antagonist’s forces belong to the same entity, the enunciator. The HINDER FDP is applied in the main clause of the first sentence (We limit), framing the interaction as an internal clash. This frame is reinforced and extended in the second sentence, where continue to adds a durative aspect. Once again, a temporal perspective is evident, with a focus on the present situation. While the company might have had a greater environmental impact in the past, this fact is omitted. In the present, the company exerts an internal force to counteract its own impact, leading to a reduced environmental footprint. Moreover, the lexicalisations used for the HINDER FD pattern indicate an increase in the Antagonist’s force (with terms like limit evolving to minimize or highest), creating a crescendo of effort that implies an intensified commitment, with a clear promotional intent.

The following example presents an even clearer psychological construal, reinforced through strategic lexicalisation:

Here, the verb marshalling acts as a trigger for the first phase, where an intra-company divided self is “volitionally” (Talmy 2000: 447) mobilizing its strengths against external forces. This construal evokes a military frame, further reinforced by the phrase convening power, which highlights strategic coordination. The conflict is lexicalised in the dual challenges of impact and resilience. The analysis reveals two FDPs: HELP (i.e., we positively impact planet) and DESPITE (i.e., we will resist despite adversities). Both FDPs enhance the narrative of trustworthiness across different aspects of the ESG (namely Environmental and Governance). Additionally, the second sentence reinforces the framing by introducing a double trigger for a steady-state FDP: the constant internal effort implied by commitment aligns with the external continually striving, giving both phases a unified aspectual meaning and implying a consistent effort over time. This strategy narrativizes one of the company’s core values: trustworthiness.