MEANING-MAKING SCENARIOS IN MEDIA DISCOURSE: A COGNITIVE AND MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS
Abstract
This paper addresses multimodal scenarios for the contruction of the meaning of the russia-Ukraine war (hereinafter the war) in the English and Ukrainian segments of Telegram. Theoretically, this analysis is underpinned by the cognitive-pragmatic, cognitive-semiotic, and multimodal approaches in media linguistics. The multimodal political discourse of the Telegram messenger uses equipollent semiotic meaning-making systems – graphic, audio, cinematographic, hypertext. In meaning-making of the WAR, semiotic resources combine into multimodal scenarios where the typical one is an image (photo/video) + title + text + link. Emoji reactions have pragmatic and cognitive functions: they contribute to the construction of meaning, testify to its influence on the reader, form the mental space of the war, and serve as information rating. In Telegram posts, the ways of stretching information include accentuation, elaboration, extending, combining, and questioning. In 2022-2023, news channels The NYT and TRUHA form and change the reader's world construal; their posts give a negative assessment to the mental space of the WAR and refute the imperial mental stereotypes of Russian narratives – the political and psychological basis of their aggression against independent Ukraine. In Telegram posts, meaning-making of the WAR is built on conceptual extensions: Ukraine, Ukraine's allies, russia and corresponding cognitive schemes: "Ukraine has a reliable leader", "Ukraine has a well-developed economy", "Ukraine has a great history and culture", as well as "russia is a murderer", "russia violates international law", "russia has criminal leaders", etc. The work proves the hypothesis about the interdependence of semiotic means of meaning-making and the meanings they construct, as a result of which these means transform the world construal and indirectly influence the society.
References
2. Черняєва К. Telegram: месенджер чи соціальна мережа? Marketer, 13.02.2018. URL: https://marketer.ua/ ua/telegram-messendzher-ili-sotsialnaya-set/
3. Bateman J. A., Schmidt K.-H. Multimodal film analysis. How films mean. London and New York: Routledge, 2012.
4. Bentley A. R., O’Brien M. J. The acceleration of cultural change. From ancestors to algorithms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2017.
5. Boulding K. National images and international systems. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 1959. № 3. Р. 120–131.
6. Castells M. Communication, Power and Counter- Power. International Journal of Communication. 2007. № 1. Р. 238–66.
7. Schmid, H.-J. (Ed.) Cognitive Pragmatics. Berlin etc.: Mouton de Gruyter, 2012.
8. Cottam R. W. Foreign policy motivation: A general theory and a case study. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977.
9. Fauconnier G., Turner M. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind's hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books, 2008.
10. Jones R., Hafner C.A. Understanding digital literacies. A practical introduction. London, New York: Routledge, 2012.
11. Herrmann, R. K. Perception and image theory in international relations / L. Haddy, D.O Sears, J.S. Levy (Eds.) The Oxford book of political psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. P.334-363.
12. Herrmann R. K., Fischerkeller M. P. Beyond the enemy image and spiral model: Cognitive-strategic research after the Cold War. International Organization. 1995. 49. № 3. Р. 415–450.
13. Horowitz D. L. Ethnic groups in conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.
14. Kress G., Leeuwеn T. van. Multimodal discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold, 2001.
15. Krysanova T. Constructing negative emotions in cinematic discourse: a cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Cognition, communication, discourse. 2019. № 19. Р. 55-77.
16. Lakoff G., Turner M. More Than Cool Reason. A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1989.
17. Loader B.D. Social movements and new media. Sociology Compass. 2008. V2. #6. P. 1920–1933. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00145.x
18. Machin D., van Leeuwen T. Multimodality, Politics and Ideology. Journal of Language and Politics. 2016. V. 15. #3. P. 243–258.
19. McLuhan M. Understanding Media: The Extension of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
20. Molina S., Belmonde I. The construction of meaning in multimodal discourse. A digital story as a case study. Exploring Discourse Strategies in Social and Cognitive Interaction: Multimodal and Cross-linguistic Perspectives / M. Romano, M. D. Porto (Eds.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2016. P. 111-135.
21. Moschini I., Sindoni M. G. The digital mediation of knowledge, representations and practices through the lenses of a multimodal theory of communication. Mediation and multimodal meaning making in digital environments / I. Moschini, M. G. Sindoni (Eds.) New York, London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis group, 2022. P.1-13.
22. Shevchenko I., Gutorov V. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective on apologies in English and Ukrainian discourse. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. 2019. Vol. IV. #2. P. 301-342. URL: https://lartis. sk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ShevchenkoGutorov_ Issue-2_2019.pdf
23. Silverstone R. The sociology of mediation and communication. The International handbook of sociology / C. Calhoun, C. Rojek, B.Turner (Eds.). London: Sage, 2005. P. 188–207.
24. Webster F. (Ed.) Culture and politics in the information age: A new politics? London, UK: Routledge, 2001.
25. Zhabotynska S., Ryzhova O. Ukraine and the West in pro- Russia Chinese media: A methodology for the analysis of multimodal political narratives. Cognition, communication, discourse. 2022. №24. Р. 115-139. https://doi.org/10.2656 5/2218-2926-2022-24-09
