COGNITIVE PRAGMATIC FRAMING IN POLITICAL AND DIPLOMATIC DISCOURSE
Keywords:
cognitive pragmatics, framing, political discourse, diplomatic language, conceptual metaphor, speech acts, discourse analysisAbstract
This article examines the role of cognitive-pragmatic framing in political and diplomatic discourse, focusing on how language structures influence perception, interpretation, and strategic communication. Drawing on established theories from cognitive linguistics and pragmatics, including framing theory, speech act theory, and conceptual metaphor theory, the study analyzes how political actors construct meaning, legitimize actions, and shape public opinion. The research highlights the interaction between cognition and discourse strategies in diplomatic negotiations and political rhetoric. The findings demonstrate that framing mechanisms are not merely linguistic tools but cognitive structures that guide interpretation and decision-making processes in political contexts.
References
Goffman, E. Frame Analysis. 1974, pp. 21–45.
Sperber, D., Wilson, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 1995, pp. 54–78.
Chilton, P. Analysing Political Discourse. 2004, pp. 102–130.
Lakoff, G. Don’t Think of an Elephant! 2004, pp. 3–25.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. Metaphors We Live By. 1980, pp. 14–32.
Searle, J. Speech Acts. 1969, pp. 23–47.
Fairclough, N. Language and Power. 1989, pp. 56–89.
Levinson, S. Pragmatics. 1983, pp. 181–210.
Berridge, G. Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. 2015, pp. 67–95.
Entman, R. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” 1993, pp. 51–58.
van Dijk, T. Discourse and Power. 2008, pp. 120–150.
Wodak, R. The Discourse of Politics in Action. 2009, pp. 75–110.
Azerbaijan
Türkiye
Uzbekistan
Kazakhstan
Turkmenistan
Kyrgyzstan
Republic of Korea
Japan
India
United States of America
Kosovo