Cognitive Framing and Conceptualization in Media Discourse: Mechanisms of Meaning Construction
https://doi.org/10.56225/ijassh.v4i4.494
Keywords:
Media Discourse, Cognitive Framing, Conceptual Metaphor, Meaning ConstructionAbstract
In the context of rapidly evolving media environments, the cognitive dimension of media discourse has emerged as a critical area of interdisciplinary inquiry. This paper undertakes a systematic examination of the cognitive mechanisms underlying media discourse, with particular attention to how framing strategies, conceptual metaphors, and processes of meaning construction interact to shape audience cognition. Drawing on cognitive linguistic theory and discourse-analytical frameworks, the study analyzes a corpus of contemporary media texts, including political news articles, televised broadcasts, and social media narratives. A mixed-method approach is employed, combining qualitative metaphor analysis with quantitative frame mapping to examine how media discourse organizes, filters, and directs public interpretations of complex socio-political phenomena. The findings reveal that cognitive mechanisms such as metaphorical framing and conceptual blending not only structure media narratives but also function as powerful tools of ideological influence and identity construction. By integrating cognitive linguistics with discourse analysis, this research contributes to the theoretical development of media cognition and offers a comprehensive account of how linguistic and conceptual patterns operate across diverse discursive modalities. Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of critical media literacy in enabling audiences to recognize and deconstruct the cognitive strategies embedded in contemporary media communication.
Downloads
References
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
Egamberdieva, S. (2024). Cognitive and neurolinguistic aspects of advertising discourse perception. International Journal of Industrial Engineering, Technology & Operations Management, 2(2), 52–58.
Egamberdieva, S. (2024). The analysis of language of advertising discourse based on English advertising texts. ACTA NUUz, 1(1.4), 373–376.
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
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. Basic Books.
Forceville, C., & Urios-Aparisi, E. (2009). Multimodal metaphor. Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W. (2017). Metaphor wars: Conceptual metaphors in human life. Cambridge University Press.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Musolff, A. (2016). Political metaphor analysis: Discourse and scenarios. Bloomsbury.
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
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
Semino, E. (2008). Metaphor in discourse. Cambridge University Press.
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
van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Author

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.






















