EXISTING APPROACHES TO PROPAGANDA ANALYSIS: A CRITICAL REVIEW AND THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATIVE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32782/2522-4077-2026-218-1Keywords:
імпліцитна пропаганда, аналіз пропаганди, критичний дискурс-аналіз, соціокогнітивний підхід, теорія фреймів, мультимодальний дискурс-аналіз, інтегративна аналітична модельAbstract
This article critically examines the principal theoretical and methodological approaches to propaganda analysis in order to evaluate their capacity to investigate implicit propaganda in contemporary political media discourse. Although propaganda research has evolved from classical models of persuasion to approaches grounded in discourse analysis, cognition, framing, pragmatics, and multimodality, existing analytical traditions remain methodologically fragmented. The study reviews the contributions and limitations of classical propaganda studies, semiotics, Critical Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, the socio-cognitive approach, framing theory, pragmatics, narrative analysis, and multimodal discourse analysis, with particular attention to their ability to identify implicit forms of propaganda. The comparative analysis demonstrates that these approaches address different analytical levels, including lexicogrammatical, discursive, cognitive, pragmatic, narrative, framing, and multimodal dimensions, and should therefore be regarded as complementary and their isolated application cannot adequately explain the multidimensional interaction of linguistic, discursive, cognitive, and semiotic mechanisms underlying implicit propaganda. The article argues that the principal limitation of contemporary propaganda research lies in methodological fragmentation rather than in the explanatory value of individual approaches. It substantiates the need for an integrative analytical perspective that combines complementary analytical levels into a coherent methodology for investigating implicit propaganda
References
Robinson P. Expanding the Field of Political Communication: Making the Case for a Fresh Perspective Through “Propaganda Studies”. Frontiers in Communication. 2019. Vol. 4. Article 26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00026.
Huang H., Cruz N. Propaganda, Presumed Influence, and Collective Protest. Political Behavior. 2022. Vol. 44. P. 1789–1812. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09683-0.
Till C. Propaganda through ‘reflexive control’ and the mediated construction of reality. New Media & Society. 2021. Vol. 23, No. 6. P. 1647–1663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820902446.
Bakir V., Herring E., Miller D., Robinson P. Organized Persuasive Communication: A New Conceptual Framework for Research on Public Relations, Propaganda and Promotional Culture. Critical Sociology. 2019. Vol. 45, No. 3. P. 311–328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920518764586.
Entman R. M. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication. 1993. Vol. 43, No. 4. P. 51–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
van Dijk T. A. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society. 2006. Vol. 17, No. 3. P. 359–383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250.
Sperber D., Wilson D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford : Blackwell, 1995.
Klinger U., Svensson J. The end of media logics? On algorithms and agency. New Media & Society. 2018. Vol. 20, No. 12. P. 4653–4670. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818779750.
Bradshaw S., Howard P. N. The Global Disinformation Order: 2019 Global Inventory of Organised Social Media Manipulation. Working Paper 2019.3. Oxford : Project on Computational Propaganda, 2019. 23 p. URL: https://demtech.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/posts/the-global-disinformation-order-2019-global-inventory-oforganised-social-media-manipulation/.
Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. 2nd ed. London : Routledge, 2006. 291 p.
Forceville C. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework: Agendas for research. In: Forceville C., Urios-Aparisi E., eds. Multimodal Metaphor. Berlin ; New York : De Gruyter Mouton, 2009. P. 19–44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215366.1.19.
Fairclough N. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London : Longman, 1995.
van Dijk T. A. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London : SAGE, 1998. 384 p.
van Dijk T. A. Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404.
Lasswell H. D. The Theory of Political Propaganda. American Political Science Review. 1927. Vol. 21, No. 3. P. 627–631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1945515.
Ellul J. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York : Knopf, 1965.
Lasswell H. D. The Structure and Function of Communication in Society. In: Bryson L., ed. The Communication of Ideas. New York : Harper & Brothers, 1948. P. 37–51.
Jowett G. S., O’Donnell V. Propaganda & Persuasion. 7th ed. Thousand Oaks : SAGE, 2019.
Barthes R. Mythologies. Translated by Annette Lavers. New York : Hill and Wang, 1972.
Eco U. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington : Indiana University Press, 1976.
Fowler R., Hodge B., Kress G., Trew T. Language and Control. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. 224 p.
Scheufele D. A. Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication. 1999. Vol. 49, No. 1. P. 103–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x.
