Manipulative Mechanisms in German Economic Discourse: A Study of Publications on Foreign Economic Relations between Germany and China in 2020-2023
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-8-148-169
Abstract
This study explores the mechanisms of manipulative influence within German-language economic discourse. The empirical material consists of articles from the Köln Institute for Economic Research, detailing external trade cooperation between Germany and China during the years 2020 to 2023. It has been found that metaphors, borrowings, idiomatic expressions, expressive language, and emotives — comprising combinations of evaluative connotations — exert a covert manipulative effect on communication participants. At the grammatical level, the use of adverbs in the superlative degree and modal verbs in the preterite subjunctive form enables the construction of narratives that downplay the significance of China’s successes as an economic competitor. The analysis reveals that manipulation within economic discourse is intentionally obscured, possessing an implicit nature. It has been determined that portraying the Chinese economy in an unequivocally negative light is impractical; however, there are noticeable trends towards diminishing the significance of its successes, negatively evaluating business activity, and exaggerating the perceived threats posed by China to its business partners. The novelty and relevance of this research lie in addressing the techniques of manipulative influence in shaping the linguistic worldview within economic discourse — a perspective that has not yet been explored, as such texts are often considered objective documents grounded in scientific statistical data.
About the Authors
I. A. Shipova
Moscow Pedagogical State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina A. Shipova - Doctor of Philology, Professor Department of German Language.
Moscow
N. V. Badaeva
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia V. Badaeva - PhD of Philology, Associate ProfessorDepartment of German Language.
Moscow
WoS ResearcherID P-6316-2015
References
1. Iglesias, G. I., Mattes, J. (2023). Chinas Abhängigkeit vom Westen bei Importen und Technologien. IW-Report 15/23, 15 (23): 26 S. (In Germ.).
2. Industriepolitik in der Zeitenwende. (2023). IW-Policy Paper 7/23: Aktuelle politische Debattenbeiträge. 46 S. (In Germ.).
3. Mattes, J. (2023(a)). China-Handel 2022: Ungleichgewicht und Abhängigkeit weiter verstärkt. IW-Kurzbericht № 9/23, 9 (23): 3 S. (In Germ.).
4. Mattes, J. (2023(b)). Entwicklung des Konkurrenzdrucks durch China auf dem EU-Markt: Update einer Vorläuferstudie. IW-Report 39/23, 39 (23): 23 S. (In Germ.).
5. Mattes, J. (2023(c)). China-Abhängigkeiten der deutschen Wirtschaft: Mit Volldampf in die falsche Richtung. IW-Kurzbericht № 68/22, 68 (23): 3 S. (In Germ.).
6. Arutyunova, N. D. (1990). Discourse. In: Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary. Moscow: Soviet Encyclopedia. 136—137. (In Russ.).
7. Badaeva, N. V. (2023). Metaphorical modeling in the economic discourse of German-language online media. Moscow: St. Petersburg. 192 p. ISBN 978-5-4461-2162-5. (In Russ.).
8. Belousov, K. I., Baranov, D. A., Zelyanskaya, N. L. (2014). Scientific subject area: from ontology to the conceptual sphere. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 4 (41): 52—62. (In Russ.).
9. Demyankov, V. Z. (2002). Political discourse as a subject of political science philology. Political science, 3: 31—44. (In Russ.).
10. Gewirtz, P. (2023). Words and policies: “De-Risking” and China policy. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/words-and-policies-de-risking-and-china-policy/ (accessed 08.07.2024).
11. Izyumskaya, S. S. (2012). The information field of the media and manipulative tactics of Anglicism in oppositional discourse. Education. Science. Innovation: The Southern Dimension, 3 (23): 213—218. (In Russ.).
12. Karasik, V. I. (2002). Linguistic circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena. 477 p. ISBN 5-88234-552-2. (In Russ.).
13. Kessler, S. (2022). What is “Friendshoring”? New York: The New York Times Company. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/18/business/friendshoring-jargon-business.html (accessed 08.07.2024).
14. Koveshnikova, M. N. (2014). Speech manipulation and techniques of speech manipulation. In: XVIII Tsarskoye Selo readings: materials of the international scientific conference (April 22—23, 2014): in 3 volumes, 1. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the Leningrad State University. 387—394. (In Russ.).
15. Likholetova, P. V. (2005). Cognitive-pragmatic analysis of the discourse of the subject area “painting”. PhD Diss. Krasnodar. 174 p. (In Russ.).
16. Melnik, A. V., Shemonaev, T. I. (2019). The discursive picture of the world: an ontological analysis. Izvestia of the Ural Federal University. Series 3: Social Scienc-es, 14 (2 (188)): 5—13. (In Russ.).
17. Mikhaleva, O. L. (2008). Political discourse: The specifics of manipulative influence. Moscow: LIBROCOM. 256 p. ISBN 978S397002271. (In Russ.).
18. Naidenova, N. S. (2016). Mechanisms of speech influence in economic discourse: on the example of the texts of speeches by the heads of the US Federal Reserve. Questions of psycholinguistics, 30: 146—155. (In Russ.).
19. Pimenova, M. V. (2011). The linguistic picture of the world: a textbook. Kemerovo: Kemerovo State University. 113 p. ISBN 978-5-8353-1111-8. (In Russ.).
20. Rezanova, Z. I. (2011). Discursive pictures of the world. In: Pictures of the Russian world: modern media discourse. Tomsk: Publishing House SK-S. 15—94. (In Russ.).
21. Riker, P. (2008). Conflict of interpretations: essays on hermeneutics. Moscow: Academic Project. 696 p. ISBN 978-5-8291-1025-3. (In Russ.).
22. Serebrennikov, B. A. (ed.). (1988). The role of the human factor in language: Language and the picture of the world. Moscow: Nauka. 212 p. ISBN 5-02-010880-4. (In Russ.).
23. Shagbanova, H. S. (2020). Linguistic means of speech manipulation. Theories and problems of political research, 9(5A): 72—80. DOI: 10.34670/AR.2020.67.69.010. (In Russ.).
24. Shakhovsky, V. I. (2009). Categorization of emotions in the lexico-semantic system of language: monograph. Moscow: URSS. 204 p. ISBN 978-5-397-00204-2. (In Russ.).
25. Staritsyna, O. A., Khusnutdinova, L. G. (2019). Foreign borrowings in the media as a tool for manipulating the audience (sociological analysis). Bulletin of the USPTU. Science, education, economics. Series: Economics, 1 (27): 100—106. DOI: 10.17122/2541-8904-2019-1-27-100-106. (In Russ.).
26. Turner, M., Fauconnier, G. (1995). Conceptual integration and formal expression. Metaphor & Symbolic Activity, 10 (3): 183—204. DOI: 10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3.
27. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17 (3): 359—383. DOI: 10.1177/0957926506060250.
28. Van Leeuwen, T. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotics. London and New York: Routledge. 302 p. ISBN 0-203-64702-5.
29. Vasiliev, A. D. (2022). The immodest charm of Anglicisms: the magnetism of dark words. Siberian Philological Forum, 1 (18): 40—50. DOI: 10.25146/2587-7844-2022-18-1-107. (In Russ.).
30. Vinogradova, S. A. (2010). Tools of speech manipulation in political media discourse. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, 2 (23): 95—101.
Review
For citations:
Shipova I.A., Badaeva N.V. Manipulative Mechanisms in German Economic Discourse: A Study of Publications on Foreign Economic Relations between Germany and China in 2020-2023. Nauchnyi dialog. 2024;13(8):148-169. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-8-148-169
Views:
254
Email this article 