Theoretical implications, scope, and propositions
This study makes two theoretical contributions that reconceptualize crisis communication dynamics in extended emergencies. First, the empirical analysis reveals a cyclical frame reinforcement model that challenges and modifies the linear progression assumptions of traditional crisis lifecycle models. Traditional crisis lifecycle models, exemplified by Fink’s [15] four-stage model and Mitroff’s [25] five-stage framework, assume linear progression from prodromal detection through acute response to chronic recovery and eventual resolution. These models treat crisis communication as a problem-solving sequence where each phase builds upon the previous one, ultimately culminating in resolution and organizational learning [17].
However, recent scholarship on “mega-crises” has challenged these linear assumptions. Boin et al. [6] argue that prolonged, multi-wave emergencies exhibit different dynamics than contained incidents, requiring theoretical frameworks that account for recursive rather than linear temporal patterns. The Chinese COVID-19 as a “mega-crisis” reveals a recursive pattern where frames undergo strategic cyclical intensification and redeployment. The empirical evidence demonstrates that crisis communication in extended emergencies operates through what can be termed “spiral progression”—a dynamic where previously deployed frames are not abandoned but rather stored as strategic resources for future reactivation.
This cyclical mechanism—where “retired” frames are strategically reactivated, modified, and redeployed for new circumstances—represents a theoretical advancement that requires crisis communication models to account for recursive rather than linear temporal dynamics. The theoretical implications extend beyond simple model modification to challenge core assumptions about crisis narrative development. Where traditional models assume progressive frame abandonment as crises evolve, the cyclical reinforcement model reveals that effective extended crisis communication operates through iterative adaptation cycles that treat previous frames as renewable strategic assets. This finding necessitates theoretical frameworks that model recursive intensification as a core feature of protracted crisis management, altering how scholars conceptualize the relationship between time, narrative evolution, and communication effectiveness in extended emergencies.
This framework focuses on the recurrence of external threat conditions (e.g., virus variants) that compel a return to high-alert operations. By contrast, the cyclical frame reinforcement model proposed in this study foregrounds the deliberate, strategic redeployment of previously shelved frames rather than the involuntary re-entry into operational phases. The cyclical frame reinforcement model explains how communicators actively revive earlier discursive packages—often in altered form—to maintain legitimacy or mobilize compliance even when the material threat profile has changed. This distinction highlights the unique contribution of the present research: it shifts analytical focus from organizational process loops to rhetorical strategy cycles, revealing how narrative tools themselves become resources that can be stored, re-activated, and reconfigured across protracted emergencies.
Our findings resonate with recent research on pandemic learning and governance adaptation. Lund-Tønnesen and Christensen [23] identify similar recursive patterns in how governments recalibrate communication strategies based on shifting epidemiological and political conditions. The cyclical frame reinforcement observed in China’s case extends their framework by demonstrating how authoritarian systems leverage discursive resources across multiple crisis phases.
Second, the analysis identifies semantic governance as a distinctive mechanism of authoritarian crisis communication that extends framing theory into the domain of regime legitimacy maintenance. Unlike democratic contexts where policy reversals typically require explicit acknowledgment and justification due to pluralistic discourse environments, the Chinese case demonstrates how controlled information ecosystems enable sophisticated linguistic engineering to preserve governmental credibility during major policy transitions. The transition from “zero-COVID” to “coexistence” messaging exemplifies semantic governance in action: rather than acknowledging policy failure, authorities employed strategic euphemism (“optimization”), temporal reframing (“new phase”), and victory narratives (“decisive success”) to transform policy reversal into adaptive evolution. This linguistic management represents a form of soft power governance where semantic control becomes a mechanism for exercising authority over public perception, enabling regimes to navigate policy contradictions without appearing to falter.
The theoretical significance lies in demonstrating how authoritarian communication systems can leverage discourse monopoly to achieve frame transformation impossible in competitive information environments. This insight expands framing theory beyond its traditional focus on competitive discourse dynamics [7] to encompass how controlled information systems generate unique opportunities for strategic narrative management that preserve legitimacy while enabling policy adaptation.
The analysis reveals that “semantic governance” in authoritarian contexts transcends mere administrative control over information flows, constituting instead a systematic discursive capacity for meaning construction [13]. Through the strategic establishment of acceptable semantic boundaries, the manipulation of keyword emotional orientations, and the systematic “addition, deletion, and substitution” of core vocabulary across different crisis phases, governmental actors achieve the reallocation of public emotions and attribution logic without substantially altering underlying policy objectives. This monopolization of symbolic resources enables regimes to rewrite potential policy failures—such as the termination of zero-COVID strategies—as strategic upgrades, thereby achieving what might be termed “continuity through policy discontinuity” [28]. In contrast to democratic contexts that rely on public deliberation to modify narratives, semantic governance demonstrates an alternative pathway for legitimacy maintenance through discursive recoding rather than discursive competition [18].
Semantic governance contributes two distinctive insights to crisis communication scholarship. First, the narrative resilience mechanism operates through gradual semantic adjustments—such as the progression from “zero-COVID” to “optimization” to “Class downgrade”—enabling authorities to absorb external shocks while preserving overarching narrative frameworks [5]. This demonstrates superior narrative flexibility compared to simple media censorship, revealing sophisticated discursive elasticity that maintains interpretive coherence despite policy volatility [12]. Second, semantic governance functions as a legitimacy transformation bridge, connecting performance-based legitimacy with performative legitimacy through the intermediary mechanism of “narrative legitimacy” [27].
This enables regimes to maintain psychological dominance over public perception through semantic recoding when performance indicators falter, suggesting that traditional crisis lifecycle models require supplementation with a pervasive “semantic adaptation” component [11]. Such theoretical expansion explains how authoritarian systems accomplish crisis narrative self-repair and reproduction through controlled discourse systems in the absence of institutionalized accountability mechanisms.
Theoretical positioning: dialogue with international crisis communication scholarship
The empirical patterns we document invite theoretical positioning within broader crisis‑communication scholarship. They aim to enrich existing models by highlighting possible cyclicality and semantic adjustments in extended emergencies. Firstly, the evidence of recursive frame deployment invites a reconsideration of widely accepted crisis stages models beyond Chinese or authoritarian contexts.
While cyclicality was observed in China’s crisis narrative, future research should examine whether elements of frame recycling appear in protracted crises elsewhere. The concept of semantic governance underscores how political context can fundamentally alter crisis communication mechanisms. In democratic settings, crisis communication effectiveness is often tied to managing a contested information environment, as stakeholders publicly debate narratives [7]. The Chinese case suggests that in controlled media environments, narrative flexibility can substitute for public debate. Scholars should explore to what extent semantic governance tactics—like euphemisms or strategic re-framings—are present or viable in hybrid regimes or even democracies under certain conditions (e.g., wartime censorship or emergency laws). Additionally, by focusing on how global pressures mediate domestic communication (and vice versa), this study aligns with calls for a more internationalized crisis communication theory [19].
The findings support the notion that crisis communication strategies must be analyzed within a multi-level governance context, acknowledging that global interdependence and transnational norms increasingly shape national narratives. This Chinese case thus contributes a concrete example of how global forces (WHO guidelines, international opinion, etc.) can be internalized and linguistically managed within state narratives. Finally, the research highlights an interplay between performance legitimacy and narrative legitimacy. It suggests crisis communication scholars should incorporate insights from comparative politics, recognizing that the goals and methods of crisis framing may differ across regimes not only in degree but in kind. By engaging with interdisciplinary perspectives, the refined theoretical constructs proposed here—cyclical frame reinforcement and semantic governance—can be tested and elaborated in varied socio-political contexts, advancing a more globally attuned crisis communication scholarship.
Globalization and health equity implications
Our findings show that transnational cues shape not only when governments reframe but also whose risks are foregrounded when reframing occurs. In a pandemic mega-crisis [6], China’s podium rhetoric recycled and repurposed frames as WHO guidance, markets, and diplomacy evolved. Narrating rapid policy changes as “optimization” rather than reversal preserved communicative continuity, which can stabilize compliance, yet it also risks under-specifying transition risks for clinically and socioeconomically vulnerable groups (e.g., surge capacity, targeted antivirals, occupational protections). This is the classic capacity–legitimacy trade-off in crisis talk: meaning-making that sustains credibility may simultaneously obscure distributional consequences [5, 8].
Two equity mechanisms emerge from our evidence. First, semantic smoothing—euphemism (“optimization”), temporal reframing (“new phase”), and selective metrics—reduces perceived discontinuity but can delay actionable guidance for priority populations during pivot windows. Second, priority-group diffusion: generic references to “key populations” crowd out explicit, time-bound commitments (e.g., booster outreach timelines, triage guarantees). These mechanisms align with scholarship on crisis exploitation and framing contests—where rhetorical choices redistribute blame/credit and shape policy trajectories [4].
Cross-national work also shows that privacy regimes and crisis strategies condition legitimation of intrusive tools and their distributive effects. Lund-Tønnesen [22] demonstrates that Germany, Norway, and the UK justified digital surveillance through distinct legitimacy mixes rooted in privacy institutions and strategic orientations. Our authoritarian case adds a complementary pathway: semantic governance can legitimate equally intrusive or abrupt shifts without open contestation—raising different equity risks (opaque targeting, uneven relief).
Equity hinges on learning that surfaces and corrects such blind spots. Building on Lund-Tønnesen and Christensen’s distinction between internal (capacity-facing) and external (audience-facing) learning [23], our results suggest strong external learning (fast rhetorical accommodation to global cues) but thinner internal learning on equity disclosure during transitions. For mega-crises, we recommend three equity checkpoints embedded in press briefings at each policy change: (i) a plain-language risk summary for high-risk groups; (ii) time-bound service guarantees (antivirals, ICU access, disability accommodations); and (iii) a one-paragraph equity note explaining how the change was assessed against distributional criteria. These communicative guardrails align global norms with equity-first implementation, limiting the costs of semantic smoothing.
Transnational communication dynamics and global health governance
Our longitudinal design points to a recurring short lag between international signals and domestic rhetorical adjustment in this case. With that caveat, we sketch two governance dynamics that may merit further study (see Table 4). In mega-crises, meaning-making is recursive rather than linear [6]; our contribution is to show how those recursions are timed by transnational cues and implemented through podium discourse—linking global norms to national decision cycles. This clarifies two governance dynamics.
First, discursive alignment without immediate policy convergence: governments may mirror WHO lexicon and frames while sustaining divergence in implementation, especially under sovereignty-sensitive conditions [8]. Second, selective globalization in talk: technical cooperation often appears emphasized while autonomy claims are reinforced, preserving room for delayed or partial uptake—an instance of strategic framing consistent with crisis exploitation logics [4, 5].
Comparative insights suggest these dynamics are institutionally contingent. In European democracies, differences in privacy regimes and crisis strategies yielded distinct legitimation scripts for intrusive tools [22]. In information-controlled environments, semantic governance can perform a similar function to contested legitimation: it orchestrates narrative transitions that absorb global pressure while maintaining autonomy. For assessment, we propose a light-weight discursive alignment dashboard to complement standard IHR/WHO monitoring: (i) event-study lead/lag between WHO advisories and official briefings; (ii) domain-coded alignment (surveillance, PHSM, borders, vaccination, therapeutics, data transparency; see Table Appendix D); and (iii) semantic indicators (pivot lexemes, narrative rationales). These indicators do not prove causality, but they make visible when and how global governance travels through national communication—and when it stalls. They also create a platform for learning that narrows the gap between external rhetorical accommodation and internal capacity adjustments [5, 6, 23].