The effect of fake news on the conceptualisation of the role of the face mask during the Covid-19 pandemic in Poland
A cognitive linguistic perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13173/WS.68.2.239Schlagworte:
filter bubble, face mask, cognitive linguistics, subjectification, frameAbstract
The aim ascribed to this paper is to investigate the effect of fake news on the conceptualisation of the role of the face mask and the distinguishing features of its wearers during the Covid-19 pandemic in Poland. The analysis is couched in the cognitive linguistics paradigm in which meaning is dynamic, negotiated in context (Langacker 2008) and may be influenced by the mental process of subjectification, as a result of which the conceptualiser explicitly expresses their attitude towards an element or elements of the perceived scene. The main objective is to demonstrate how being enclosed in the Covid-19 fake news filter bubble (in the sense of Pariser 2011) subjectifies the conceptualisation of the reality of the pandemic, manifesting itself through replacing the standard Polish term maseczka ‘face mask’ by negatively loaded lexemes, which express a critical and frequently condescending attitude towards this unpopular sanitary accessory and people using it. The meanings of the equivalents of maseczka are analysed in context in order to demonstrate how they are both grounded in and updated by the expressions occurring in the Current Discourse Space (Langacker 2008).
Literaturhinweise
Bacon, Francis. 1955 [1620]. Novum Organum. In Dick, Hugh G. (ed.), Selected Writings, 455–540. New York: Modern Library.
Bakshy, Eytan & Messing, Solomon & Adamic, Lada A. 2015. Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science 348 (6239). 1130–1132.
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22. 577–660.
Bell, Emily & Owen, Taylor. 2017. The platform press: How Silicon Valley reengineered journalism. New York: Tow Center for Digital Journalism. http://doi.org/10.7916/D8R216ZZ.
Chadwick, Andrew. 2013. The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Constitution of Poland, available at https://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/polski/kon1.htm (accessed 6 Aug 2023).
Croft, William. & Cruse, Allan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, Huw C. 2018. Redefining filter bubbles as (escapable) socio-technical recursion. Sociological Research Online 23(1). 637–654.
Doroszewski: Słownik języka polskiego pod red. Witolda Doroszewskiego, available at https://sjp.pwn.pl/doroszewski/.
Dreyfus, Hubert L. 1991. Being-in-the-World: A commentary of Heidegger’s Being and Time. Division I. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
Dutton, William H. & Reisdorf, Bianca & Dubois, Elizabeth & Blank, Grant. 2017. Social shaping of the politics of internet search and networking: Moving beyond filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news. Quello Center Working Papers 2944191. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2944191.
Fauconnier, Gilles & Turner, Mark. 2002. The way we think. New York: Basic Books.
Fillmore, Charles J. & Atkins, Beryl T. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbours. In Lehrer, Adrienne & Kittay, Eva F. (eds.), Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization, 75–102. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6(2). 222–254.
Flaxman, Seth & Geol, Sharad & Rao, Justin M. 2016. Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly 80(S1). 298–320.
Floridi, Luciano. 2016 Fake news and a 400-year-old problem: We need to resolve the ‘post-truth’ crisis. The Guardian, 29 Nov 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/29/fake-news-echo-chamber-ethics-infosphere-internet-digital (accessed 15 Dec 2020).
Heidegger, Mark. 1927 [1962]. Being and time. (Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson.) New York: Harper and Row.
Hidgon, Nolan. 2020. The anatomy of fake news. Oakland: University of California Press.
Kardela, Henryk. 2012. Kontekst, przestrzenie mentalne, podmiot w językoznawstwie kognitywnym. In Kardela, Henryk & Muszyński, Zbigniew & Rajewski, Marek (eds.), Empatia, obrazowanie i kontekst jako kategorie kognitywistyczne, 301–316. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS.
Korpal, Paweł. 2013. Subjective vs objective viewing of think in English. In Połczyńska, Monika & Pakuła, Łukasz & Jaworska, Dorota (eds.), Young linguists’ insights: Taking interdisciplinary approaches to the fore, 133–138. Poznań: Wydział Anglistyki UAM.
Kövecses, Zoltan & Radden, Günter. 1998. Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics 9(7). 37–77.
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2006. Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Kövecses, Zoltan. 2017. Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2). 321–347.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1 (Theoretical prerequisites). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A view of linguistic semantics. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics, 45–90. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1(1). 5–38.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 2 (Descriptive application). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. Obserwacje i rozważania na temat zjawiska subjektyfikacji. Kraków: Universitas.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2006. Subjectification, grammaticization, and conceptual archetypes. In Athanasiadou, Angeliki & Canakis, Costas & Cornille, Bert (eds), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity, 17-40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Motsch, Wolfgang. 1981. Der kreative Aspekt in der Wortbildung. In Lipka, Leonard (ed.), Wortbildung, 94–118. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Musolff, Andreas. 2006. Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 21(1). 23–38.
Negroponte, Nicholas. 1996. Being digital. London: Coronet Books.
NKJP: Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego, available at http://www.nkjp.pl/.
OED: Oxford English Dictionary, available at https://www.oed.com/.
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Viking.
Puschmann, Cornelius. 2017. How significant is algorithmic personalization in searches for political parties and candidates? https://www.hiig.de/en/personalized-search-results-elections/ (accessed 6 Aug 2023).
Schwab, Klaus & Malleret, Thierry. 2020. COVID-19: The great reset. Cologny & Geneva: Forum Publishing.
SJP PWN: Słownik języka polskiego PWN, available at https://sjp.pwn.pl/.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2006. Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Talwar, Shalini & Dhir, Amandeep & Kaur, Puneet & Zafar, Nida & Melfi, Alrasheedy. 2019. Why do people share fake news? Associations between the dark side of social media use and fake news sharing behaviour. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 51. 72–82.
Tufekci, Zeynep. 2018. YouTube, the great radicalizer. New York Times, 10 Mar 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html (accessed 20 Dec 2021).
Urban Dictionary, available at https://urbandictionary.com/.
Waszakowa, Krystyna. 2017. Kontekstowe innowacje słowotwórcze w internetowych tekstach publicystycznych i w ich komentarzach: Studium przypadku. LaMiCuS: Language, Mind, Culture, Society 2017(1). 136–151.
Waszakowa, Krystyna. 2018. Akt słowotwórczy jako specyficzny sposób działania nadawcy i odbiorcy. In Chojak, Jolanta & Zaron, Zofia (eds.), Ku rzeczom nie błahym, 93–106. Warszawa: BEL Studio.
WSJP: Wielki Słownik Języka Polskiego, available at https://sjp.pwn.pl/doroszewski/.
Veröffentlicht
Zitationsvorschlag
