["Journal of Applied Philosophy, EarlyView. ", "\nABSTRACT\nThe words we use to represent the world shape how we interpret and respond to it; language frames what it represents. In some cases, these frames can have prejudicial effects; for example, ‘workplace flirting’ versus ‘sexual harassment’. This article examines how specific words and phrases (i.e. lexical frames) may anchor oppressive social practices. That is, by enabling a coordinated ‘way of looking’ at the world, these lexical frames may stabilise cognitive and affective habits that perpetuate wider forms of social coordination, including oppressive practices. I examine how representational resources may become imbued with, and thereby replicate, ideological distortions. I subsequently show that this has important consequences for attempts to address hermeneutical injustice. When one attempts to fill a hermeneutical lacuna by baptising some previously obscured target, one may thereby frame the target in a distorting way. Specifically, one may replicate the distorting frame which anchors the oppressive practice one seeks to resist. Moreover, distorting frames may be especially appealing precisely because of their compatibility with the dominant ideology which offers a mistaken sense of understanding. I argue it is thus crucial to attend to the role of lexical frames in ameliorative projects.\n"]