DISTRESS in English media: integrating cognitive-discursive and computational approaches
Abstract
The study acknowledges that DISTRESS is a complex cognitive, linguistic, and social phenomenon conceptualized in media discourse by polarized lexical instantiations and conceptual metaphors. This paper focuses on discovering the contrual of DISTRESS and its cultural and contextual objectification in the social context of media discourse. The theoretical backbone comprises conceptual metaphor theory, discourse theory, frame semantics and field theories, and linguistic theory of emotions. Cognitive-discursive framework reinforced by the computational approach reveals communicative situations of distress and their contextual specifications governed by specific communicative strategies and tactics. Integration of discursive and computational analyses with the assistance of Voyant Tools, Textanz, and SentiStrength brings topicality and insightful revelations about the fragments as particular contexts of sociocultural knowledge about DISTRESS. Cognitive framework discloses preconceptual characteristics of DISTRESS, its lexicon, and metaphoric conceptualization on various levels of abstration. The frame model of DISTRESS represents knowledge and associations about the emotion and the interplay of sensory and symbolic information. Discursive framework underpinned by a versatile text analytical software tool Textanz 3.1.4 enables to identify the types, ratio, and shared values of participants in communicative situations of distress. Sentiment analysis by a software tool for social web texts SentiStrength 2.3 helps extract the strength of mixed emotions on a dual scale (positive/negative sentiments) that articulates evaluative attitudes towards the particular communicative situation of distress regulated by a particular communicative strategy.
Downloads
References
Berrios, R., Totterdell, P., & Kellett, S. (2015). Eliciting mixed emotions: a meta-analysis comparing models, types, and measures. Frontiers in Psychology, 6:428. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00428
Brafman, A. H. (2016). The language of distress: understanding a child’s behavior. London: Karnac Books.
Casasanto, D., & Dijkstra, K. (2010). Motor action and emotional. Cognition, 115(1), 179–185.
Croft, W. (2003). The role of domains in the interpretation of metaphors and metonymies. In R. Dirven, & R. Pörings (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 161–207). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Crowe, M. & Alavi, Ch. (1999). Mad talk: attending to the language of distress. Nursing Inquiry, 6, 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1800.1999.00008.x
Daneš, F. (1987). Cognition and emotion in discourse interaction: a preliminary survey of the field. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Congress of Linguists, 168–179.
Demjén, Z., Marszalek, A., Semino, E., & Varese, F. (2019). Metaphor framing and distress in lived-experience accounts of voice-hearing. Psychosis, 11(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17522439.2018.1563626
Dijk, T. A. van. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17 (2), 359–383.
Evans, V., & Green, M. C. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Fiehler, R. (1990). Kommunikation und Emotion: theoretische und empirische Untersuchungen zur Rolle von Emotionen in der verbalen Interaktion [Communication and emotion: theoretical and empirical inquiries about the role of emotions in verbal interaction]. Berlin: Mouton de
Gruyter.
Fillmore, Ch. (1968). The case for case. In E. Bach, & R. T. Harms (Ed.), Universals in linguistic theory (pp. 1–88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Fillmore, Ch. (1982). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanschin.
Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: discourse and ideology in the press. London: Routledge. 90
Goleman, D. (2006). Emotional intelligence: why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Issers, O. S. (2008). Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoj rechi [Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo LKI.
Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York, NY: Plenum.
Jung, C. G. (2014). The archetypes and the collective unconscious. London: Routledge.
King, Ph. (2012). Metaphor and methodology for cross-cultural investigation of Hebrew emotions. Journal of Translation, 8(1), 9–24.
Kövecses, Z. (2017). Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(2), 321–47.
Krysanova, T. (2019). Constructing negative emotions in cinematic discourse: a cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, 19, 55–77. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218-2926-2019-19-04
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lauk, E. (2002). Use of us-them polarization in constructing ideological discourses (Estonia 1940–1989). History, Media and Identity II: 23 IAMCR Conference and General Assembly, Barcelona, July 21–26.
Lotsu, D.-B. P. (2020). Cultural practices as sites of trauma and empathic distress in Like cotton twines (2016) and Grass between my LIPS (2008). In A. L. Hubbell, N. Akagawa, S. Rojas-Lizana, & A. Pohlman (Eds.), Places of traumatic memory (pp. 241–261). Switzerland: Springer Nature.
McEnery, T., Brezina, V., Gablasova, D., & Banerjee, J. (2019). Corpus linguistics, learner corpora, and SlA: employing technology to analyze language use. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190519000096
Menard, R. (2017). Critical discourse studies on social values, ideology and Finnish equality (Doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland). Retrieved from https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/228887/CRITICALD.pdf?sequence=1
Minsky, M. (2006). The emotion machine: commonsense thinking, artificial intelligence, and the future of the human mind. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Nidich, Ch. et al. (2011). Reduced psychological distress in racial and ethnic minority students. Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 109–116.
Shakhovskyi, V. I. (2008). Lingvisticheskaya teoriya emocij [Linguistic theory of emotions]. Moscow: Gnozis.
Shevchenko, I. S. (2007). Simvolicheskij interakcionalizm i analiz diskursa [Symbolic interactionalism and discourse analysis]. Visnyk Kharkiv. nats. un-tu im. V.N. Karazina.—V. N. Karazin National Univ. Messenger, 782, 3–6.
Sinclair, S., & Rockwell, G. (2016). Voyant tools. Retrieved from http://voyant-tools.org/
Stowell, T. A. (1981). Origins of phrase structure (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15626
Thelwall, M., Buckley, K., & Paltoglou, G. (2012). Sentiment strength detection for the social web. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(1), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21662
Tiemeyer, L.-S. (2013). The doubtful gain of penitential prayer: the fine line between lament and penitential prayer. In T. Bulkeley, & M. Bier (Eds.), Spiritual complaint: theology and practice of lament (pp. 102–121). Pickwick Press. 91
Trier, J. (1973). Zur Geschichte und Theorie des sprahlichen Feldes [On the history and theory of linguistic field]. Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft.
Verbytska, A. (2017). Metaphorical profile of distress in English media discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 18(2), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1515/topling-2017-0010
Wierzbicka, A. (1999). Emotions across languages and cultures: diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ya-Ni, Z. (2007). Communication strategies and foreign language learning. US-China Foreign Language, 5(4), 43–48.
Copyright (c) 2020 Anna Verbytska, Tetiana Krysanova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors, who publish with this journal, accept the following conditions:
The authors reserve the copyright of their work and transfer to the journal the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Non-Derivs License (CC BY-NC-ND), which allows other persons to freely distribute a published work with mandatory reference to the authors of the original work and the first publication of the work in this journal.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal (for example, to post the work in the electronic institutions' repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is given.
The journal policy allows and encourages the authors to place the manuscripts on the Internet (for example, in the institutions' repositories or on personal websites), both before the presentation of this manuscript to the editorial board and during review procedure, as it contributes to the creation of productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
