Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная
лингвистика
и
лингводидактика
–
Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
Structural and semantic methods in English political
linguistics
Zilola ALIMOVA
1
Uzbekistan State World Languages University
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received January 2025
Received in revised form
10
February 2025
Accepted 25 February 2025
Available online
25 March 2025
This article explores the structural and semantic techniques
employed in English military-political discourse to construct
meaning, legitimize military actions, and influence public
opinion. Drawing on frameworks from critical discourse
analysis (Fairclough), conceptual metaphor theory (Lakoff &
Johnson), and framing theory (Entman), the study analyzes
150 articles from BBC, Reuters, and The Guardian. The
research reveals a prevalent use of compounding, acronyms,
and metaphorization in political language, facilitating
communication that is both concise and ideologically charged.
The findings underscore the significance of linguistic strategies
in shaping narrative, public perception, and the challenges of
cross-linguistic translation.
2181-3701
/©
2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol3-iss3
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
political linguistics,
military discourse,
critical discourse analysis,
metaphor,
framing,
terminology,
semantics,
structure.
Ingliz siyosiy tilshunosligidagi strukturaviy va semantik
usullar
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
siyosiy lingvistika,
harbiy diskurs,
tanqidiy diskurs tahlili,
metafora,
kadrlar tahlili,
terminologiya,
semantika,
strukturaviy xususiyatlar.
Ushbu maqolada ingliz harbiy-
siyosiy diskursida ma’no
yaratish, harbiy harakatlarni legitimlashtirish va jamoatchilik
fikriga ta’sir ko‘rsatish uchun ishlatiladigan strukturaviy va
semantik usullar tahlil qilinadi. Tadqiqot Norman Faircloughning
tanqidiy diskurs tahlili, Lakoff va Johnsonning metafora nazariyasi
hamda Entmanning kadrlar nazariyasiga asoslangan. BBC, Reuters
va The Guardian nashrlaridagi 150 maqola misolida terminlarning
birikmasi, qisqartmalar va metaforalar keng qo‘llanilayotganligi
aniqla
nadi. Natijalar siyosiy tilning g‘oyaviy xabarlarni siqilgan
holda yetkazishdagi rolini ko‘rsatadi hamda tarjima jarayonidagi
muammolarga e’tibor qaratadi.
1
Scientific Researcher, Uzbekistan State World Languages University.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
339
Структурные и семантические методы в англоязычной
политической лингвистике
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые
слова:
политическая
лингвистика,
военный дискурс,
критический дискурс
-
анализ,
метафора,
фрейминг,
терминология,
семантика,
структура
.
Статья посвящена анализу структурных и семантических
методов в английском военно
-
политическом дискурсе,
направленных на формирование смысла, легитимацию
военных действий и влияние на общественное мнение.
В исследовании применены подходы критического
дискурсивного анализа (Фэркло), теории концептуальной
метафоры (Лакофф и Джонсон), а также теории фреймов
(Энтман). На материале 150 статей из BBC, Reuters и The
Guardian выявлены ключевые лингвистические стратегии –
словосложение, акронимизация и метафоризация. Выводы
подчеркивают значимость языка как инструмента
идеологического воздействия и проблемы перевода
терминов в межъязыковом контексте.
INTRODUCTION
Political language functions as a powerful instrument shaping public opinion,
framing conflicts, and
legitimizing military action. Norman Fairclough’s critical discourse
analysis (CDA) underlines how political texts construct social reality (Fairclough, 1995).
George Lakoff’s conceptual metaphor theory further demonstrates how recurring
metaphors
–
such as WAR IS A SPORT or THEATRE
–
guide audience interpretation
(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). In English military reporting, terms like “precision strike” or
“shock and awe” encapsulate complex operations and moral justifications in a few words.
This study investigates the apparatus and terminology of political linguistics in English
military discourse, focusing on both structural patterns (compounding, acronyms,
neologisms) and semantic strategies (metaphorization, framing, terminologization), with
examples drawn from recent Reuters, BBC, and The Guardian reports.
METHODS
We compiled a corpus of 150 English-language military articles (2021
–
2023) from
Reuters, the BBC, and The Guardian. Applying a mixed-methods approach, we conducted:
1.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
(Fairclough, 1995; Van Dijk, 2008) to reveal
power relations and ideological stances.
2.
Frame Analysis
(Entman, 1993) to identify problem definitions, causal
interpretations, moral judgments, and treatment recommendations.
3.
Conceptual Metaphor Analysis
(La
koff & Johnson, 1980) to catalog metaphors
modeling WAR, BATTLE, and PEACE.
4.
Structural Linguistics
to classify compounding patterns, acronyms, and
neologism formation.
5.
Semantic Field Analysis
to trace shifts in denotation and connotation across
contexts.
All instances of military terminology were annotated in NVivo and tallied for
frequency; illustrative examples were extracted for qualitative interpretation.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
340
RESULTS
Structural Patterns
: Compounds constituted 45% of term formations. Frequent
types included:
•
Noun
–
Noun compounds
: “precision strike,” “missile defense,” “battle damage
assessment” (Reuters, 2022).
•
Verb
–
Noun compounds
: “counterinsurgency operations,” “preemptive action.”
•
Acronyms and Initialisms
: “IED” (Improvised Explosive Device), “ROE”
(Rules
of Engagement), “ISR” (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) appeared in 30% of
articles (BBC, 2023).
•
Neologisms
: “Brexit army” in political
-opinion pieces to metaphorically describe
a nationalist bloc (The Guardian, 2021).
Semantic Strategies
:
•
Metaphorization
: WAR portrayed as SPORT (e.g., “scoring precision hits,”
Reuters, 2022) and THEATRE (e.g., “opening act of regional conflict,” BBC, 2022).
•
Framing
: U.S. strikes framed as “precision” to highlight technological superiority
and minimize civ
ilian harm; by contrast Russian actions framed as “indiscriminate
bombardment” (The Guardian, 2023).
•
Terminologization
: Common words like “shield” acquire technical sense in
“missile shield,” signaling defensive posture (Entman, 1993).
•
Emotive Labeling
: Us
e of “regime” vs. “government” to delegitimize opposing
forces (Van Dijk, 2008).
DISCUSSION
The predominance of compounding aligns with Crystal’s (2003) observation that
English favors morphological bundling for precision. Acronyms foster brevity in high-
s
takes contexts but risk opacity for lay audiences (Bhatia, 2010). Metaphorization, per
Lakoff & Johnson (1980), shapes cognitive framing: describing intervention as “surgical
strike” suggests medical precision and moral neutrality. Entman’s (1993) frame el
ements
–
problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, treatment recommendation
–
manifest clearly in military reportage, guiding reader attitudes toward legitimacy and
fairness. Fairclough’s CDA highlights how structural choices
–
passive constructions
(“civilians were evacuated”)
–
obscure agency and responsibility.
Translators and analysts must navigate these layers: a direct translation of “shock
and awe” fails to convey its dual marketing and psychological dimensions; instead,
adaptatio
n as “потрясение
и
устрашение” (Russian) captures the intended effect.
Similarly, “kinetic action” requires contextual rendering as “боевое
применение
силы”
in other languages to preserve both denotation and evaluative force.
CONCLUSION
English political linguistics in military discourse employs an interplay of structural
mechanisms (compounding, acronyms) and semantic strategies (metaphor, framing,
terminologization) to convey complex operations succinctly and persuasively.
Theoretical frameworks by Faircl
ough (1995), Lakoff & Johnson (1980), and Entman
(1993) elucidate how terminology constructs realities and influences public sentiment.
Future research should expand cross-linguistic comparisons, develop unified glossaries,
and refine translation guidelines that balance technical accuracy with pragmatic intent.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
3 (2025) / ISSN 2181-3701
341
REFERENCES:
1.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51
–
58.
2.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of
Language. Longman.
3.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago
Press.
4.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
Bhatia, V. (2010). Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Professional Discourse.
Continuum.
6.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a Global Language. Cambridge University Press.
