Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T14:29:14.261Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strike, accident, risk, and counter-factuality: hidden meanings of the post-Soviet Russian news discourse of the 1990s via conceptual blending*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2014

ANNA PLESHAKOVA
ANNA PLESHAKOVA*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
*
†e-mail: anna.pleshakova@area.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing upon Paul Chilton’s (2005) approach to manipulative discourse analysis, this paper looks into how the ideas of risk and blame, as shifted from Yeltsin and his team of ‘reformers’ in the pursuit of restoring Yeltsin’s political credibility, were propagated through the media news management during the presidential election of 1996. By applying the Conceptual Integration or Blending framework (Fauconnier & Turner, 2002) to a case study of the Russian news story about an airport strike, the paper reveals how the mass media was manipulated at an almost invisible level, which has not been explored so far. The paper argues that conceptual integration can be successfully used as a core cognitive linguistic research method for elucidating culturally specific and historically changing cognitive frames and analysis of counter-factuality in manipulative news discourse.

Keywords

conceptual blendingdiscourse analysiscounter-factualitymanipulationcultural modelsframes
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 301 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Paul Chilton and two anonymous reviewers for commenting on this paper. I am also grateful to Mark Turner, Gilles Fauconnier, and Christopher Hart for commenting on the conference presentations of the paper.

References

references

Apresian, J. (2000). Systematic lexicography. Oxford : Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Lehrer, A., & Feder Kittay, E. (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: new essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 21−75).Hillsdale, NJ/Hove/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Brandt, L. (2008). A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 109−149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2005). Manipulation, memes and metaphors: the case of Mein Kampf. In Saussure, L., & Schulz, J. P. (Eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century (pp. 15−45). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P. (2008). Reflections on blends and discourse. In Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 251−257). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2010). The conceptual structure of deontic meaning: a model based on geometrical principles. Language and Cognition, 2 (2), 191−220.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. (2008). Looking at analyses of mental spaces and blending/Looking at and experiencing discourse in interaction. In Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 235−247). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2001). Semantic leaps: frame-shifting and conceptual blending in meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coulson, S. (2006). Conceptual blending in thought, rhetoric, and ideology. In Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives (pp. 187−211). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Deriabin, A. (1998). ‘Russkij Proekt’: konstruirovanie natsionalnoj istorii I identichnosti [‘Russian project’: the construction of national history and identity]. Russian Journal, online: <http://old.russ.ru/journal/media/98-04-15/deryab.htm>.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Frank, R., & Putz, M. (Eds.) (2003). Cognitive models in language and thought: ideology, metaphors and meanings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Polzenhagen, F., & Wolf, Hans-Georg (2007). Cognitive linguistics, ideology and critical discourse analysis. In Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1222−1241). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Wolf, Hans-Georg, & Polzenhagen, F. (2007). Cognitive linguistics and cultural studies. In Geeraerts, D., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 1203−1222). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1992). Risk and blame: essays in cultural theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Ch., & Atkins, B. (1992). Towards a frame based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, A., & Feder Kittay, E. (Eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: new essays in semantic and lexical organization (pp. 75−103). Hillsdale, NJ/Hove/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fowler, J. (2000). A synopsis and analysis of the thought and writings of Jacques Ellul, online: <http://www.christinyou.com/pages/ellul.html>..>Google Scholar
Hart, Ch. (2007). Critical discourse analysis and conceptualisation: mental spaces, blended spaces and discourse spaces in the British National Party. In Hart, Ch., & Lukes, D. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis (pp. 180−207). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Hart, Ch. (2013). Event-construal in press reports of violence in political protests: a cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3), 400−423.Google Scholar
Hart, Ch., & Lukes, D. (Eds.) (2007). Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.) (2008). Mental spaces in discourse and interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jowett, G., & O’Donnell, V. (2006). Propaganda and persuasion. Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. (1986). Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93 (2), 136−153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press/New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Lukes, D. (2007). What does it mean when texts ‘really’ mean something? Types of evidence for conceptual patterns in discourse. In Hart, Ch., & Lukes, D. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis (pp. 180−207). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Maslova, V. A. (2004). Kognitivnaia lingvistika [Cognitive linguistics]. Minsk: TetraSistems.Google Scholar
Mickiewicz, E. (1997). Changing channels: television and the struggle for power in Russia. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211−277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Musolff, A. (2007). Is there such a thing as discourse history? The case of metaphor. In Hart, Ch., & Lukes, D. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics in critical discourse analysis (pp. 1−27). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Nordenstreng, K., Vartanova, E., & Zassoursky, Y. (Eds.) (2001). Russian media challenge. Helsinki : Kikimora Publications.Google Scholar
Norris, P., Kern, M., & Just, M. R. (Eds.) (2003). Framing terrorism: the news media, the government, and the public. Hove : Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, T. (1998). Conceptual blending, narrative discourse, and rhetoric. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 321−360.Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Coulson, S. (2008). Connecting the dots: mental spaces and metaphoric language in discourse. In Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 27−51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Oakley, T., & Kaufer, D. (2008). Designing clinical experiences with words: three layers of analysis in clinical case studies. In Hougaard, A., & Oakley, T. (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 149−179). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Paducheva, E. (2004). Dinamicheskie modeli v semantike leksiki [The dynamic models in semantics of lexis]. Moscow: Yazyki slavianskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. (1996). Towards a theory of cultural linguistics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, G. (2006). Energy through fusion at last: synergies in cognitive anthropology and cognitive linguistics. In Achard, M., Dirven, R., & Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, F. J. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: current applications and future perspectives (pp. 263−300). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pires de Oliveira, R. (2001). Language and ideology: an interview with George Lakoff. In Dirven, R., Hawkins, B., & Sandikcioglu, E. (Eds.), Language and ideology: theoretical cognitive approaches (pp. 23−48). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pleshakova, A. (1998). Issledovanie freimov ‘proisshestvie’ na materiale russkikh i anglijskikh gazetnykh tekstov zhanra ‘informacionnoe soobshchenie’ [The exploration of frames ‘accident’ in Russian and English newspaper reports]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Saratov State University.Google Scholar
Pleshakova, A. (2010). Werewolves in epaulettes. In Parrill, F., Tobin, V., & Turner, M. (Eds.), Meaning, form, and body. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Popova, E. (2001). ‘Avos’’ v russkom soznanii [‘Avos’’ in Russian mind], online: <http://commbehavior.narod.ru/RusFin/RusFin2001/Popova.htm>..>Google Scholar
Rakovskaya, O. (1994). Formirovanie ekonomicheski aktivnogo cheloveka v Rossii [The formation of the economically active man in Russia]. Problemy prognozirovaniia, 6, 120−131.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F. (2008). Cultural models of home in Aboriginal children’s English. In Kristiansen, G., & Dirven, R. (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 333−353). Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sharifian, F., & Palmer, G. (Eds.) (2007). Applied cultural linguistics: intercultural communication and second language learning and teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shore, B. (1996). Culture in mind: cognition, culture, and the problem of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K. (2002). Mythmaking in the new Russia: politics and memory during the Yeltsin era. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Yu. (2004). Konstanty: Slovar’ russkoj kul’tury [Constants: The dictionary of Russian culture]. Moscow: Akademichesky Proekt.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E., & Dancygier, B. (2005). Mental spaces in grammar: conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1996). The literary mind: the origins of thought and language. New York / Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (2001). Cognitive dimensions of social sciences: the way we think about politics, economics, law, and society. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (2008). Frame blending. In Favretti, R. (Ed.), Frames, corpora, and knowledge representation (pp. 13−32). Bologna: Bononia University Press.Google Scholar
Vartanova, E. (2001). Media: changed and unchanged. In Nordenstreng, K.Vartanova, E. & Zassoursky, Y. (Eds.), Russian media challenge (pp. 21−72). Helsinki: Kikimora Publications.Google Scholar
Zalialeeva, A. (2004). Kontsept ‘Schast’e’ v sovremennom russkom iazyke [The concept ‘happiness’ in modern Russian language]. In Galiullin, K. (Ed.), Russkaia I sopostavitel’naia filologiia: sostoianie I perspektivy [Russian and comparative philology: the state and the future]: the proceedings of the conference (pp. 268−269). Kazan: Kazanskij State University, online: http://www.ksu.ru/f10/publications/2004/articles_1_1.php?id=9&num=11000000>.Google Scholar
Zalizniak, A., Levontina, I., & Shmelev, A. D. (2005). Kliuchevye idei russkoj iazykovoj kartiny mira [The key ideas of Russian linguistic worldview]. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Zassoursky, I. (2001). Media and power: Russia in the nineties. In Nordenstreng, K.Vartanova, E., & Zassoursky, Y. (Eds.), Russian media challenge (pp. 73−91). Helsinki: Kikimora Publications.Google Scholar
Zassoursky, I. (2004). Media and power in post-Soviet Russia. Armonk, NY/London: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Zassoursky, Y., & Vartanova, E. (1998). Changing media and communications: concepts, technologies and ethics in global and national perspectives. Moscow: Faculty of Journalism/ ICAR.Google Scholar
Zinken, J. (2009). Preface. In Bartminski, J., Aspects of cognitive ethnolinguistics (edited by Zinken, Jörg) (pp. 1−5). London/Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar