Abstract
In the context of rapidly evolving media environments, the cognitive dimension of media discourse represents a critical area of interdisciplinary inquiry. This paper undertakes a systematic examination of the cognitive mechanisms underlying media discourse, particularly focusing on how framing strategies, conceptual metaphors, and meaning construction processes interact to shape audience cognition. Drawing on cognitive linguistic theory and discourse analytical frameworks, we investigate a corpus of contemporary media texts, including political news articles, televised broadcasts, and social media narratives. The study employs a mixed-method approach, combining qualitative metaphor analysis with quantitative frame mapping, to elucidate how media discourse organizes, filters, and directs public interpretation of complex socio-political phenomena. Our findings reveal that cognitive mechanisms such as metaphorical framing and conceptual blending not only structure media narratives but also function as potent tools of ideological influence and identity construction. This research contributes to the theoretical elaboration of media cognition by offering an integrative account of how linguistic and conceptual patterns operate across discursive modalities. Ultimately, the paper underscores the importance of critical media literacy in recognizing and deconstructing the cognitive strategies embedded in contemporary media communication
References
1. Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
2. Egamberdieva, S. (2024). Cognitive and neurolinguistic aspects of advertising discourse perception. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Technology & Operations Management, 2(2), 52–58.
3. Egamberdieva, S. (2024). The analysis of language of advertising discourse based on English advertising texts. ACTA NUUz, 1(1.4), 373–376.
4. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
5. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
6. Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Mouton de Gruyter.
7. Gibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge University Press.
8. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
9. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
10. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
11. Musolff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. Bloomsbury.
12. Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881
13. Pragglejaz Group. (2007). MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752
14. Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge University Press.
15. Semino, E. (2021). Not soldiers but fire-fighters: Metaphors and COVID-19. Health Communication, 36(1), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1844989
16. van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.