MENTAL MODELS OF THE AUTHOR IN ONLINE NEWS DISCOURSE: COVID-19 FAKES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17721/2520-6397.2021.3.04Keywords:
discourse analysis, mental models, fake news; disinforma¬tion, media discourse, COVID-19Abstract
The article concerns mental models in Internet news discourse that are used by the author to produce fake news about COVID-19. Fake news is understood as an umbrella term, including misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. False news can be found as inaccurate, unsupported, half true, misleading or false. The problem of COVID-19 is global and the consequences of COVID-19-related infordemic may have consequences that go far beyond public health. Van Dijk's Sociocognitive discourse analysis framework is used for the Internet news which were proven as fakes by factchecking sites, such as VoxCheck, Full Fact, Health Feedback and FactCheck.org. Discourse production is viewed as a complex cognitive process. The article aims to describe structures of discourse in terms of explicit psychological theories of mental representations, which are mental models. These mental models, which are subjective representation of events, control the main topics and local coherence of fake news discourse. The macrostructure or the main topics that are being discusses and on which the whole story is based are “lab leak theory”, the origin of the virus, nature of the virus, whether people in power have good or ill intent, vaccination, wearing masks, false cures, emergency responses, reinfections. Local coherence is analyzed in terms of meaning relations between propositions. Fake news about COVID-19 are predominantly based on contrast/comparison and cause-and-effect relations.
The results show that mental models are based on the intention of the author, the type(s) of the author, the global topic and relations between propositions of the discourse. Knowledge of mental models can discourage the proliferation of fake news. This may as well help to slow the spread of the disease.
References
Hall, J. (2005). Onlainova zhurnalistyka. [Online journalism]. Kyiv : Vydavnytstvo «К. І. S.» [in Ukrainian].
Gerard, G. (1998). Povestvovatel'nyi diskurs [Narrative discourse]. Fihury (Vols. 2), (pp. 60-274). Moskva : Izd-vo im. Sabashnikovyh [in Russian].
Zernetskij, P. V. (1992). Rechevoe obshchenie na anglijskom yazyke (Kommunikativno-funkcional 'nyj analiz diskursa) [Speech communication in English (communicative-functional discourse analysis)]. Kiev : Lybid [in Russian].
Kvit, S. (2018). Postpravda i faktchekinh [Posttruth and factchecking] Masovi komunikacii. Druhe vydannia, (pp. 258-268). Kyiv : Vydavnychyi dim «Kyievo-Mohylianska akademiia» [in Ukrainian].
Kucherova, О. О. (2008). Opovidna struktura novynnoho dyskursu: osnovni kharakterystyky ta pryntsypy pobudovy (na materiali brytanskykh zahalnonatsionalnykh shchodennykh novyn) [Narrative structure of news discourse: the main features and production structures (based on British National Daily news)]. Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. T. 85: Filolohichni nauky - Philological Studies, 75-77 [in Ukrainian].
Mahas, N. (2014). Mentalni modeli yak konstrukty realnosti ta irrealnosti [Mental models as constructs of reality and unreality]. Studia methodologica, 37, 179-183 [in Ukrainian].
Makarov, M. L. (2003). Osnovy teorii diskursa [The basics of discourse theory]. Moskva : ITDGK “Gnozis” [in Russian].
Selivanova, О. О. (2008). Suchasna linhvistyka: napriamy ta problemy [Modern linguistics: trends and problems]. Poltava : Dovkillja-Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Shmid, V. (2003). Narratolohija [Narratology]. Moskva : yazyki slavianskoi kultury [in Russian].
Dijk van, T. A. (2016). Sociocognitive Discourse Studies. Handbook of discourse analysis J. Richardson & J. Flowerdew (Eds.), (pp. 26-43). London : Routledge.
Farte, G.-I., & Obada, D.-R. (2018). Reactive Public Relations Strategies for Managing Fake News in the Online Environment. Postmodern Openings, 9(2), 26-44. Retrieved from https://doi.org /10.18662/po/16.
Johnson-Laird, Ph. N. (1989). Mental Models. Foundations of Cognitive Science, (pp. 469-499). Cambridge (Mass.): London : MIT press.
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of discourse comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5), 363-394. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363.
Newman, N. (2021). Executive summary and key findings of the 2021 report. (n. d.). reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2021/dnr- executive-summary.
Matheson, D. (2005). Media Discourses. Analysing Media Texts. Open University Press.
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe report DGI (2017) 09. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int /information-disorder-report-version-august-2018
Zernetsky, P. (2016). Pandiscourse of the Internet. Mahisterium, 62: Movoznavchi studii, 32-34. Retrieved from http://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle /123456789/9319.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Linguistic and Conceptual Worldviews

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.














