Cognitive Models of Future in Political Texts
International Journal of Language and Linguistics
Volume 2, Issue 1, January 2014, Pages: 1-4
Received: Nov. 25, 2013; Published: Dec. 30, 2013
Views 2928      Downloads 148
Author
Solopova Olga Alexandrovna, Department of Linguistics, Chelyabinsk. Russian Federation, South Ural State University (National Research University)
Article Tools
PDF
Follow on us
Abstract
The present paper briefly recalls theoretical preconditions for investigating cognitive-discursive models of future in political discourse. The author reviews theories and methods used for strengthening a future focus in this discourse and works out two main tools – a model of future and a metaphorical scenario. The paper examines the implications of metaphorical analogies for modeling future in mass media. It argues that metaphor is not merely a rhetorical ornament in the political discourse of media regulation but a conceptual model that legislates and regulates our understanding of future. The metaphorical scenario includes several frames, namely, “Actors, “Space and Time”, “Reason and Consequence” that answer certain metaphorical questions that determine the image of future.
Keywords
Cognitive Approach, Future Research, Political Discourse, Model, Scenario, Metaphor
To cite this article
Solopova Olga Alexandrovna, Cognitive Models of Future in Political Texts, International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2014, pp. 1-4. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20140201.11
References
[1]
Bestuzhev-Lada, Igor (2007). Little Russian encyclopedia of future studies. Moscow: Institute of Economic Strategies.
[2]
Isserman, Andrew (1984). Projection, forecast, and plan: on the future of population forecasting, Journal of the American Planning Association, 50 (3), 208-221.
[3]
Anderson, Richard. Encouraging democratic participation in Russia: pragmatic ambiguity and identification with political speakers. Retrieved August 13, 2004 from www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/laculty/anderson/modcautx.litm
[4]
Lassan, Eleonora (1995). Discourse of power in the USSR: cognitive-discursive analysis. Vilnus.
[5]
Graber, Doris (1981). Political languages, handbook of political communication. London.
[6]
Lakoff, George (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago; London.
[7]
Chudinov, Anatoly (2003). Metaphorical mosaics in modern political communication, Ekaterinburg.
[8]
Shmeleva, Tatiana (1997). Model of speech genre. Speech Genres, 1(1), 91-92.
[9]
Sheigal, Elena (2000). Semiotics of political discourse. Institute of Linguistics of Russian Academy of Science, Volgograd: Peremena.
[10]
Dauletova, Victoria (2004).Verbal means of creating an image in political discourse. Krasnodar.
[11]
Budaev, Edward, Chudinov, Anatoly (2008). Foreign political metaphorology. Ekaterinburg.
[12]
Basilev, Vladimir (2007). Methods of studying the language of Russian political thought in Russian political discourse (traditions and innovations). Political Discourse in Russia, 10(1). 5-10.
[13]
Lakoff, George (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. New York.
[14]
Lakoff, George. Framing the dems. How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back. Retrieved December 23, 2002 from http://nww.prospect.org/web/page.ww7section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleld=6862.
[15]
Mathius, Robin (2003). New matrix or logics of strategic domination. Мoscow.
[16]
Schwartz, Peter (1996). The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. New York, Doubleday.
[17]
Akhremenko, Andrew (2004). Political prognostics: methods of scenarios. Мoscow: MAKS Press.
[18]
Slaughter, Richard (1990). The foresight principle, Futures (October).
[19]
Perloff, Harvey (1980). Planning the post-industrial city. Chicago, Ill: AРА Planners Press.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186