Social Role of PR Through the Cognitive Metaphor Prism in the English Professional Discourse

Abstract

<p>
     The article is dedicated to the study of different theoretical approaches to identifying the social role of Public Relations as a discipline and a practical field of human activity. The analysis is conducted in the framework of cognitive linguistics through the prism of cognitive metaphor in the domain of professional PR-discourse. Methods of cognitive linguistics allow for the discovery of language and consciousness interconnectedness, establish certain understanding of key ideas and notions in the professional sphere to the analysis using different language manifestations. We proceed from the premise of categorization being inalienable part of any professional activity which leads to PR specialists and theorists resorting to expressive language means in pinpointing vital characteristics of the most important notions in the field and creating certain attitudes towards them. Based on the inherent values and research angles different theoreticians define the social role of public relations, either as a tool in the war with different audiences, or a mechanism for peaceful regulation of a conflict or an adjustable social body for improving and criticizing the trends within society. Overall, pragmatic, idealistic and critical standpoints use of expressive means to serve certain ends in conveying a certain meaning or attitude.
</p>

References

1. Arutjunova N.D. 1990. Metafora i diskurs / Teorija metafory: Sbornik: per. s angl., franz., nem., isp., pol’sk. yaz. [Metaphor and discourse / Theory of metaphor: a collection of articles, transl. from Eng, Fr., Ger., Sp., Pol.]. Intro word and compiled by N.D. Arutjunova; ed. by N.D. Arutjunova. M.A. Zhurinskaja. Moscow, Progress. (In Russ.)

2. Vishnyakova O.D. 2018. Yazyk kak instrument semanticheskoj interpretazii (na materiale anglijskogo yazyka) [Language as an instrument of semantic interpretation (a case study of modern English)]. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19: Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, no. 1, pp. 17–27. (In Russ.)

3. Zagryazkina T.Yu. 2014. Reference Points of Language and Culture: Statics and Dynamics (as Exemplified by Quebec). Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, no. 2, pp. 61–71. (In Russ.)

4. Kubrjakova E.S., Dem’jankov V.Z., Pankrats Yu.G., Luzina L.G.. 1997. Kratkij slovar’ kognitivnykh terminov [A Concise dictionary of cognitive terminology]. Moscow, Philol. faculty Lomonosov Moscow State University. (In Russ.)

5. Levitsky A.E. 2019. Tekst i diskurs s pozitsii transfera znaniy: “im ne zhit’ grug bez druga”. Germanistika 2019: nova et nova. Proceedings of the Second scientific conference 2019, pp. 236–238. (In Russ.)

6. Minyar-Beloroucheva A.P. 2020. Metafory v prostranstve istoricheskogo diskursa [Metaphors in the space of historical discourse]. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Linguistics, SUSU Publishing House (Chelyabinsk), vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 5–11. Doi 10.14529/ling200401. (In Russ.)

7. Molchanova G.G. 2011. Metody issledovanija v mezhkulturnoj kommunikazii: simvol kak kognitivnaja pamjat’ kul’tury [Research methods of intercultural communication: symbol as a cognitive culture memory]. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. no. 1, pp. 7–24. (In Russ.)

8. Stepanov Yu.S. 1997. Konstanty: Slovar’ russkoi kul’turi. Opyt issledovaniya [Constants: A dictionary on Russian culture. Research experience]. Moscow, Shkola “Yazyki russkoj kul’tury”, pp. 40–76. (In Russ).

9. Ter-Minasova S.G. 2017. Challenges of Intercultural Communication: A View from Russia. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 19. Linguistics and Intercultural Communication. no. 4, pp. 9–19.

10. Bernays E.L. 1947. The Engineering of Consent. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, no. 250 (1), pp. 113–120. doi:10.1177/000271624725000116

11. Chomsky N. 2002. Media Control, the Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda.Seven Stories Press, New York.

12. Cultip S. 1994. The Unseen Power: Public Relations, Modino Press.

13. Grunig J.E. (ed.) 1992. Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14. Lakoff G., Johnson M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chi.

15. Murphy P. 1989. Game theory models for organizational/public conflict. Public Relations Review. Vol. 15, Iss. 3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(89)80006-2.

16. Oxford Learners’ Dictionary. URL: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com (accessed: 06.05.2020).

17. Pieczka M. 1995. Symmetry in communication and public relations, Conference paper. Bledcom.

18. Wolstenholme S. (ed.) 2013. Introduction of Public Relations. Pearson.