Preview

Key Issues of Contemporary Linguistics

Advanced search

Swaying public opinion by English-language media. Case study of the “green” agenda

https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5075-2024-4-53-66

Abstract

Aim. To study the manipulative techniques used by British and American quality media to form certain attitudes towards ecological and climate issues.
Methodology. Both general scientific methods and those of linguistics were used in the course of the research including cognitive linguistics methods such as conceptual and contextual analysis and the analysis of the cognitive metaphor selected with continuous sampling method.
Results. In course of the research such manipulative techniques as persuasion, suggestion and intimidation were singled out and described. Such manipulative techniques as the cognitive metaphor and the creation and adjustment of the concept CLIMATE CHANGE as a constituent of the shared worldview were analysed.
Research implications. The research contributes to the study of the discourse of the media as well as manipulation through language, the cognitive metaphor and conceptual analysis.

About the Author

O. B. Nesterova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation

Olesya B. Nesterova – Cand. Sci. (Philology), Senior Lecturer, English Department No. 3

prospect Vernadskogo 76, Moscow 119454



References

1. Dobrosklonskaya, T. G. (2008). Medialinguistics: a systematic approach to studying the language of the media. Moscow: Flinta publ., Nauka publ. (in Russ.).

2. Moles A. (2008). Sociodynamique de la culture (Russ. ed.: Mol, A. Sotsiodinamika kultury. Moscow: LKI publ. (in Russ.)).

3. Pyadysheva, T. G. (2017). Methods of influence on public opinion. In: Tambov University Review. Series: Social Sciences, vol. 3, 4 (12), 77–85 (in Russ.).

4. Gornostaeva, Yu. A. (2020). The Polyphony of Voices as a Means of Manipulation in a Polarized Political Discourse. In: Vestnik of Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Series “Humanitarian and Social Sciences”, 2, 26–33. DOI: 10.37482/2227-6564-V003 (in Russ.).

5. Boldyrev, N. N. & Fedyaeva, E. V. (2023). Cognitive Research Methods in Linguistics: Conceptual-Inferential Analysis. In: RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 14(3), 686–703. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-3-686-703.

6. Osborn, M. (1967). Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family. In: Quarterly Journal of Speech, 53 (2), 115–126. DOI: 10.1080/00335636709382823.

7. Budaev, E. V. (2007). Development of cognitive theory of metaphor. In: Linguoculturology, 1, 19–35 (in Russ.).

8. Semenova, E. M. & Naletova, N. I. (2020). Political Value of Archetypical Metaphor (in the Context of Modern US Media Discourse Analysis). In: Political Linguistics, 2 (80), 111–119. DOI: 10.26170/pl20-02-12 (in Russ.).

9. Blokh, M. Ya. & Molchanova, E. S. (2021). Metaphors and similes in the genres of internet-discourse. In: Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Linguistics, 3, 6–14. DOI: 10.18384/2310-712X-2021-3-6-14 (in Russ.).


Review

Views: 110


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2949-5059 (Print)
ISSN 2949-5075 (Online)