Fakes within Context of Historical Knowledge Interacting with Language and Thought Structures: Interdisciplinary Model
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-2-157-187
Abstract
The phenomenon of fake news is considered as a multifaceted scientific problem that cannot be solved without using an interdisciplinary approach. The relevance of the study is due to the high degree of influence of falsifications on the information perception of a person, and consequently, on the cognitive safety of society. A fake is analyzed as a complex construct that does not have clear signs, but has an intentional effect on a person. Particular attention is paid to the characteristics of the interaction of cognitive mechanisms and language forms in the practice of interaction with fakes. The concept of “post-truth” is considered as an instrument of influence of multiple subjects on the audience by proclaiming the multiplicity of truths. The practices of combating illegal information content, based on the experience of various states are described. It is noted that in Russia, history is considered a key factor in the state policy of cognitive security. The article substantiates the need to find complementary resources in linguistic and historical sciences for effective countermeasures against information manipulation and presentation of unreliable information. The authors concluded that the priority task of interdisciplinary research at the present stage is the creation of a complementary empirical scientific base taking into account the methods of cognitive linguistics and the testing of theoretical models on recipients.
About the Authors
A. A. Sharapkova
Lomonosov Moscow State University;
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasia A. Sharapkova – PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Department of English Linguistics
Moscow
A. M. Merkulova
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasiya M. Merkulova – in History, Associate Professor, Department of History of State and Municipal Administration
Moscow
References
1. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of economic perspectives, 31 (2): 211—36.
2. Artemov, A. A., Dmitry, I. P., Kovalev, V. I. (2020). Cognitive security in the context of a new digital reality. Information wars, 3: 67—70. (In Russ.).
3. Babyuk, M. I. (2021). On the question of the perception of propaganda by a Soviet person in the conditions of the late USSR: the experience of private research. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Series 10. Journalism, 3: 22—53. DOI: 10.30547/vestnik.journ.3.2021.2253. (In Russ.).
4. Balkin, J. M. (2018). Free Speech in the Algorithmic Society: Big Data, Private Governance, and New School Speech Regulation. University of California Davis Law Review, 51: 1149—1210.
5. Bastrakova, K. D., Philippova, M. M. (2021). Political euphemism as a linguistic “nuclear weapon”. Moscow: Moscow university press. 182 p. ISBN 978-5-19-011491-1.
6. Baudrillard, J. (2015). Simulacra and simulations. Simulacres et simulation. Moscow: Postum. 238 p. ISBN 978-5-91478-023-1. (In Russ.).
7. Bebich, D., Tsarevich, M. (2018). New problems-old solutions? A critical look at the report of the High-level Expert Group of the European Commission on fake news and online disinformation. Bulletin of the RUDN. Series: Political Science, 3: 447—460. DOI: 10.22363/2313-1438-2018-20-3-447-460. (In Russ.).
8. Belyaevskaya, E. G. (2017). Interpretation of knowledge about the world in linguistics: methods of study. In: Interpretation of the World in Language: A collective monograph. Tambov: Publishing House of TSU named after G. R. Derzhavin. 82—157. (In Russ.).
9. Belyavskaya E. G. (2021). Frame? The framework! Cognitive studies of language. Founders: All-Russian public organization “Russian Association of Cognitive Linguists”, 4 (47): 17—24. (In Russ.).
10. Bennett, W. L., Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action. Information, Communication and Society, 15 (5): 739—768. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661.
11. Blake, A. (2017). Kellyanne Conway says Donald Trump’s team has 'alternative facts'. Which pretty much says it all. The Washington Post. Retrieved. January 22.
12. Boldyrev, N. N. (2014). Interpretive function of language as a manifestation of its anthropocentric nature. In: Theoretical semantics and ideographic lexicography: evolution of interpretations. Moscow; Yekaterinburg: Cabinet Scientist. 53—57. ISBN 978-57525-2992-4. (In Russ.).
13. Budaeva, E. V., Chudinov, A. P. (2020). Modern Russian political metaphorology (2011— 2020)). Philological class, 2: 103—113. DOI: 10.26170/FK20-02-09. (In Russ.).
14. Claverie, B., Cluzel, F. du. (2022). Cognitive Warfare: The Advent of the Concept of “Cognitics” in the Field of Warfare. Cognitive Warfare. The Future of Cognitive Dominance, NATO Collaboration Support Office. Available at: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ hal-03635889 (accessed 24.10.2022).
15. Dake, T. van. (2013). Discourse and Power: Representation of dominance in language and communication. Moscow: URSS. 344 p. ISBN 978-5-397-03766-2. (In Russ.).
16. Danilova, A. A. (2009). Manipulation of the word in the media. Moscow: Dobrosvet: KSU Publishing House. 232 p. ISBN 978-5-98227-613-1. (In Russ.).
17. Doherty, J.-F. (2020). When fiction becomes fact: exaggerating host manipulation by parasites. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. Available at: https:// royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2020.1081 (accessed 26.10.2022).
18. Dupanov, A. S., Bikbulatova, Y. S. (2022). Global trends in the regulation of digital platforms: from soft law and self-regulation to imperatives. Law and Law, 2: 211—218. DOI: 10.24412/2073-3313-2022-2-211-218. (In Russ.).
19. Ellis, B. (2018). “Fake news” in the contemporary legend Dynamic. Journal of American Folklore, 131 (522): 398—404. DOI:10.5406/jamerfolk.131.522.0398.
20. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication (Blackwell Publishing Ltd), 43 (4): 51—58.
21. Fillmore, Ch. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In: Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin.111—137.
22. Fillmore, Ch. J. (2006). Frame semantics. In: Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Cognitive Linguistics Research 34. 373—400.
23. Fuller, S. (2018). Post-Truth. Knowledge as a Power Game. London-NY: Anthem Press. 207 p. ISBN 9781783086931.
24. Gabe, M. (2010). Reframing risk? Citizen journalism and the transformation of news. Journal of Risk Research, 13 (1): 45—58.
25. Garg, S., Sharma, D. K. (2022). Linguistic features based framework for automatic fake news detection. Computers& Industrial Engineering, 172: 108432.
26. Gelfert, A. (2018). Fake news: A Definition. Informal Logic, 38 (1). March. 84—117.
27. Goatly, A. (2007). Washing the Brain. Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 431 p.
28. Goryaeva, T. M. (2009). Political censorship in the USSR, 1917—1991. Moscow: Foundation of the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin: ROSSPEN. 405 p. ISBN 978-5-82431179-2. (In Russ.).
29. Guangming, Li. (2021). Everyone can feel that profound changes are taking place! 29.08. Available at: http://politics.people.com.cn/BIG5/n1/2021/0829/c1001-32211523. html (accessed 19.10.2022). (In Russ.).
30. Hisseine, M. A., Chen, D., Yang, X. (2022). The application of blockchain in social media: a systematic literature review. Applied Sciences, 12 (13): P. 6567. DOI: 10.3390/ app12136567.
31. Iriskhanova, O. K. (2014). Focus games in language: semantics, syntax and pragmatics of defocusing. Moscow: Yaz. Of Slavic culture (YASK). 319 p. ISBN 978-5-9551-0678-6. (In Russ.).
32. Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press. 283 p.
33. Jamet, D., Terry, A. (2020). What Makes Metaphors Manipulative Tools? ELAD-SILDA, 5: DOI: 10.35562/elad-silda.884. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349738607_What_Makes_Metaphors_Manipulative_Tools_A_Case-Study_ of_Pro-Life_Speeches_in_the_US. (accessed 19.10.2022).
34. Kara-Murza, S. G. (2008). Manipulation of consciousness. Moscow: Eksmo. 862 p. ISBN 978-5-699-10826-8. (In Russ.).
35. Koktysh, K., Renard-Koktysh, A. (2021). Cognitive measurement of safety. International processes, 19 / 4 (67): 26—46. DOI: 10.17994/IT.2021.19.4.67.3. (In Russ.).
36. Komova, T. A. (2003). Concepts of language in the context of history and culture: a course of lectures. Moscow: Maks Press. 118 p. ISBN 5-317-00694-5. (In Russ.).
37. Kopnina, G. A. (2014). Speech manipulation: a textbook. Moscow: Flint: Nauka. 169 p. ISBN 978-5-9765-0060-0. (In Russ.).
38. Kostomarov, V. G. (1969). Some features of the language of print as a means of mass communication: based on the material of a modern Russian newspaper: in 2 volumes. Doct. Diss. Moscow. 938 p. (In Russ.).
39. Kravtsov, S. S. (2022). “Conversations about important things” make it interesting to tell about the values and history of Russia (interview). Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation. 30.08. Available at: https://edu.gov.ru/press/5682/kravcov-razgovoryo-vazhnom-pozvolyat-interesno-rasskazat-o-cennostyah-i-istorii-rossii / (accessed 17.10.2022). (In Russ.).
40. Kraynyukova, L. M., Stanishevskaya, A. V., Azhmukhamedov I. M. (2021). Legal aspects of countering the creation and dissemination of “fake” content. Caspian Journal: Management and High technologies, 1 (53): 98—106. (In Russ.).
41. Kubryakova, E. S. (1999). Cognitive aspects of word formation and related rules of interpretation. New ways of studying the word formation of Slavic languages. 2nd meeting of the International Commission on Slavic Word Formation. Magdeburg 9-11.10.1997. Sonderdruck. 23—26. (In Russ.).
42. Kubryakova, E. S., Alexandrova, O. V. (1999). On the contours of a new paradigm of knowledge in linguistics. In: Structure and semantics of a literary text: Reports of the VIII International Conference “Structure and semantics of a literary text”. Moscow: Sportakademprogress. 186—197. (In Russ.).
43. Kumar, S. (2022). TextMinor at CheckThat! 2022: fake news article detection using RoBERT. Working Notes of CLEF. Available at: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3180/paper-43.pdf (accessed 25.10.2022).
44. Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 413 p.
45. Lakoff, G. (2008). The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain. New York: Viking. 292 p.
46. Lasswell, H. D. (1927). Propaganda Technique in the World War. New York: A. A. Knopf; London: Kegan Paul. 233 p.
47. Leontyeva, T. V. (2022). Language Indices of Unity and Animosity. Nauchnyi dialog, 11 (10): 70—87. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2022-11-10-70-87. (In Russ.).
48. Leontyeva, T. V., Shchetinina, A. V. (2021). Dictionary of the actual vocabulary of heresy and enmity in the Russian language of the beginning of the XXI century. Yekaterinburg: Azhur. 424 p. ISBN 978-5-91256-535-9. (In Russ.).
49. Lewis, J. A. (2018). Cognitive Effect and State Conflict in Cyberspace. The Center for Strategic and International Studies. 26.09. Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/ cognitive-effect-and-state-conflict-cyberspace (accessed 27.10.2022).
50. Linden, S. Van der., Leiserowitz, A., Rosentha, S. I., Maibach, E. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1 (2): P. 1600008. DOI:10.1002/gch2.201600008.
51. Loomba, S. (2021). Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature human behaviour, 5 (3): 337—348.
52. Manoilo, A. V., Popadyuk, A. E. (2020). Foreign scientifi approaches to the study of “fake news” in world politics. RSM, 2 (107): 285—300. DOI: 10.31249/rsm/2020.02.17. (In Russ.).
53. Nazaretyan, A. P. (2005). Psychology spontaneous mass behavior: crowd, rumor, polit. and advertising. Campaigns: studies. handbook for university students studying in the fields and specialties of psychology. Moscow: Academia. 152 p. —ISBN 5-7695-2120-1. (In Russ.).
54. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev general Psychology, 2: 175—220.
55. Nikonova, S. I. (2008). The crisis of ideology and Soviet society in the 1970s—80s. Bulletin of TSU, 7: 374—382. (In Russ.).
56. Pavlenko, A. N. (2019). Why can we talk about deflation of lies? Plenary reports and logic sections, 1: 73—76. (In Russ.).
57. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147 (12): 1865—1880.
58. Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G. (2021). The psychology of fake news. Trends in cognitive sciences, 25 (5): 388—402. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007.
59. Pocheptsov, G. G. (2019). Cognitive wars in social media, mass culture and mass communications. Moscow: OMIKO. 390 p. (In Russ.).
60. Preston, S. (2021). Detecting fake news on Facebook: The role of emotional intelligence. Plos one, 16 (3): 1—13. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246757.
61. Qiu, X., Oliveira, D. F. M. (2017). Limited individual attention and online virality of lowquality information. Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (7): 01—32.
62. Sharapova, A. A. (2018). Conceptual dominant as a key to understanding conceptual transformations in works of art. Cognitive studies of language, 34: 604—607. (In Russ.).
63. Sharapova, A. A. (2020). The Myth of King Arthur as a conceptual matrix for understanding Brexit. Nauchnyj dialog, 5 (214): 192—214. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2020-5192-214. (In Russ.).
64. Shchekoturov, A. V., Krishtal, M. I. (2020). (Re) constructing the meaning of a political action in the VKontakte social network: the case of Ivan Golunov. The world of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology, 4: 150—170. DOI: 10.17323/1811-038X-2020-29-4-150-170. (In Russ.).
65. Shevchenko, A. A. (2019). “Post-truth” as a new “regime of truth”. Humanitarian Vector, 4: 8—14. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2019-14-4-8-14. (In Russ.).
66. Shu, K. (2017). Fake news detection on social media: A data mining perspective. ACM SIGKDD explorations newsletter, 19 (1): 22—36.
67. Singer, T. (2014). The vision thing: Myth, politics and psyche in the world. Routledge. 300 p.
68. Smirnov, A. A. (2019). Preachers hate. The role of mass media in inciting genocide in Rwanda. Free thought, 1 (1673): 129—148. (In Russ.).
69. Taisina, E. A. (2022). Post-truth in the political and philosophical sense. Review of Lee McIntyre’s book “Post-Truth”, MIT Publishing House, 2018. Bulletin of Samara State Technical University. Series: Philosophy, 2 (11): 117—123. (In Russ.).
70. Talmy, L. (2007). Attention Phenomena. In: The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. NJ: Oxford University Press. 264—293.
71. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359 (6380): 1146—1151. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap9559.
72. Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2012). Propaganda and conflict: Theory and Evidence from the Rwanda Genocide: Working paper. Center for International Development at Harvard University. August. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228459270_ Propaganda_and_confl ct_Theory_and_evidence_from_the_Rwandan_genocide (accessed 08.10.2022).
73. Zabotkina, V. I., Boyarskaya, E. L. (2020). On the question of dynamic conceptual semantics: modeling the structure of the concept “overcoming”. Cognitive studies of language, XXXVIII: 208—216. (In Russ.).
74. Zabotkina, V. I., Pozdnyakova, E. M. (2022). Cognitive mechanisms of euphemization of manipulative nature. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 4: 55—64. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2022-4-55-64. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Sharapkova A.A., Merkulova A.M. Fakes within Context of Historical Knowledge Interacting with Language and Thought Structures: Interdisciplinary Model. Nauchnyi dialog. 2023;12(2):157-186. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-2-157-187
Views:
944
Email this article 