Linguistic Geoengineering: A New Paradigm for Discursive Infrastructure and Public Persuasion
Authors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55121/le.v3i1.1219Abstract
This theoretical paper (1) defines linguistic geoengineering as a theoretical framework, (2) distinguishes its unique characteristics from established theories of language and power, and (3) analyzes its implications for public persuasion and democratic engagement. Linguistic geoengineering, a novel framework for analyzing language, power, and public influence, is defined as the deliberate, systematic restructuring of discourse environments with the goal of shaping collective perception, behavior, and decision-making. A typology is developed—metaphoric, narrative, lexical, and infrastructural engineering—demonstrating how linguistic practices can recalibrate collective perception, behavior, and decision-making. It addresses three overlooked aspects in current scholarship: intentionality, scale, and systemic impacts. This paradigm conceptualizes language as an engineerable environment, facilitating the analysis of how various actors, including states and activists, craft linguistic interventions to impact public life. However, this reframing presents ethical and methodological issues. How can scholars differentiate between organic discourse shifts and artificially constructed ones? What measures should be implemented to avert the misuse of language interventions? In what ways could the public oppose or counteract such interventions? Future studies must address these inquiries by formulating methodologies for identifying linguistic geoengineering in practice, analyzing its function across many crises and domains, and scrutinizing its normative consequences. This paradigm necessitates viewing language not only as a reflection of society but as a domain of design and conflict, where the contention over words represents a contest over futures.
Keywords
Linguistic Geoengineering, Discourse Analysis, Language and Power, Cognitive Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, Framing and Persuasion, Discursive Infrastructure, SemioticsReferences
[1] Thomsen, O.N., 2023. Linguistic cognition and worldview. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia. 55(sup1), 189–210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2023.2267298
[2] Inglis, D., Pascual, U., 2023. On the links between nature's values and language. People and Nature. 5(2), 326–342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10205
[3] Summerville, K.M., Chen, V.Z., Shoham, A., et al., 2024. Speaking of diversity: Can linguistic structural differences explain cultural values toward equity, diversity, and inclusion across the globe? Journal of World Business. 59(1), 101501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2023.101501
[4] Fernández-Pedemonte, D., Casillo, F., Jorge-Artigau, A.I., 2020. Communicating COVID-19: Metaphors we “survive” by. Trípodos. 2(47), 145–160. DOI: https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Tripodos/article/view/377645
[5] Chapman, C.M., Miller, D.S., 2020. From metaphor to militarized response: The social implications of “we are at war with COVID-19”—Crisis, disasters, and pandemics yet to come. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 40(9–10), 1107–1124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-05-2020-0163
[6] Kearns, R., 2021. Narrative and metaphors in New Zealand’s effort to eliminate COVID-19. Geographical Research. 59(3), 324–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12492
[7] Altarriba, J., Basnight-Brown, D., 2022. The psychology of communication: The interplay between language and culture through time. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 53(7–8), 860–874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221114046
[8] Nishikawa, Y., Hashemi Joo, M., Parhizgari, A.M., 2023. Languages and dividend policy. Journal of Behavioral Finance. 24(1), 22–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15427560.2021.1913158
[9] Ghanizadeh, A., Al-Hoorie, A.H., Jahedizadeh, S., 2020. Critical discourse analysis. In Higher Order Thinking Skills in the Language Classroom: A Concise Guide. Springer: Cham, Switzerland. pp. 101–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56711-8_3
[10] Chong, D., Druckman, J.N., 2007. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication. 57(1), 99–118.
[11] Chomsky, N., 2016. Minimal computation and the architecture of language. Chinese Semiotic Studies. 12(1), 13–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2016-0003
[12] Asoulin, E., 2016. Language as an instrument of thought. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics. 1(1), 1–23. Available from: https://philpapers.org/archive/ASOLAA.pdf
[13] Kay, P., Regier, T., 2003. Resolving the question of color naming universals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100(15), 9085–9089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1532837100
[14] Sato, S., Casaponsa, A., Athanasopoulos, P., 2020. Flexing gender perception: Brain potentials reveal the cognitive permeability of grammatical information. Cognitive Science. 44(9), e12884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12884
[15] Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 2008. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.
[16] Thibodeau, P.H., Boroditsky, L., 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One. 6(2), e16782. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
[17] Fairclough, N., 2023. Critical discourse analysis. In: Handford, M., Gee, J.P. (Eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 11–22.
[18] Van Dijk, T.A., 2015. Critical discourse analysis. In: Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E., Schiffrin, D. (Eds.). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA. pp. 466–485. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22
[19] Wodak, R., 2004. Critical discourse analysis. In: Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., et al. (Eds.). Qualitative Research Practice. Sage: London, UK. pp. 197–213.
[20] Foucault, M., 1971. Orders of discourse. Social Science Information. 10(2), 7–30.
[21] Schneck, S.F., 1987. Michel Foucault on power/discourse, theory and practice. Human Studies. 10(1), 15–33. DOI: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20008986
[22] Entman, R.M., 1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication. 43(4), 51–58.
[23] Weaver, D., McCombs, M., Shaw, D.L., 2004. Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes, and influences. In: Kaid, L.L. (Ed.). Handbook of Political Communication Research. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. pp. 257–282.
[24] Coleman, R., McCombs, M., Shaw, D., et al., 2009. Agenda setting. In: Wahl-Jorgensen, K., Hanitzsch T. (Eds.). The Handbook of Journalism Studies. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. pp. 167–180.
[25] Hoey, M., 2012. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Routledge: London, UK.
[26] Iyengar, S., 2014. Priming theory. In The International Encyclopedia of Communication. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405186407.wbiecp101.pub2
[27] Zhang, D., Yao, J., Han, W., et al., 2024. Why does advertising work? Exploring the neural mechanism of concreteness and emotional effects of donation advertising slogans. Current Psychology. 43(25), 26630–26645. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-05907-8
[28] Grall, C., Tamborini, R., Weber, R., et al., 2021. Stories collectively engage listeners' brains: Enhanced intersubject correlations during reception of personal narratives. Journal of Communication. 71(2), 332–355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab004
[29] Prabhakaran, V., Rei, M., Shutova, E., 2021. How metaphors impact political discourse: A large-scale topic-agnostic study using neural metaphor detection. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media. 15(1), 503–512. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v15i1.18079
[30] Luca, G.E., 2024. The power of branding in politics. SAECULUM. 57(1), 145–156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/saec-2024-0012
[31] Mateus, S., 2021. Welcome to media rhetoric–Where human persuasion and technological means collide. Southern Communication Journal. 86(2), 165–174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1041794X.2021.1884282
[32] Tao, R., Kim, S.J., Lu, L., et al., 2024. Fighting fire or fighting war: Examining the framing effects of COVID-19 metaphors. Health Communication. 39(10), 2026–2040. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2023.2253398
[33] Rohela, P., Bhan, A., Ravindranath, D., et al., 2020. Must there be a “war” against coronavirus? Indian Journal of Medical Ethics. 3, 222–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2020.70
[34] Johnstone, C., Stickles, E., 2024. Navigating the climate change minefield: The influence of metaphor on climate doomism. Frontiers in Communication. 9, 1380092. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1380092
[35] Hastuti, H., Maulana, H.F., Lawelai, H., et al., 2025. Algorithmic influence and media legitimacy: A systematic review of social media's impact on news production. Frontiers in Communication. 10, 1667471. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1667471
[36] Gombar, M., Boban, M., 2025. Research on the impact of algorithmic echo chambers on perceptions and attitudes of social network users in a digital society. In Proceedings of the 2025 MIPRO 48th ICT and Electronics Convention, Opatija, Croatia, 2–6 June 2025; pp. 1026–1033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/MIPRO65660.2025.11131918
[37] Shepherd, J.G., 2012. Geoengineering the climate: An overview and update. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 370(1974), 4166–4175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0186
[38] Schliesser, E., 2019. Synthetic philosophy. Biology & Philosophy. 34(2), 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9673-3
[39] Sapir, E., 1929. The status of linguistics as a science. Language. 5(4), 207–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/409588
[40] Whorf, B.L., 1997. The relation of habitual thought and behavior to language. In: Coupland, N., Jaworski, A. (Eds.). Sociolinguistics: A Reader. Palgrave: London, UK. pp. 443–463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_35
[41] Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1980. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science. 4(2), 195–208.
[42] Dove, G., 2020. More than a scaffold: Language is a neuroenhancement. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 37(5–6), 288–311. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2019.1637338
[43] Cohn, N., Schilperoord, J., 2022. Reimagining language. Cognitive Science. 46(7), e13174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13174
[44] Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S.T., Gibson, E.A.F., 2024. Language is primarily a tool for communication rather than thought. Nature. 630(8017), 575–586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07522-w
[45] Shi-xu, 2023. Cultural Discourse Studies as culturalist approach to communication: Objects, objectives and tasks. Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 18(1), 1–3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2023.2204839
[46] Canagarajah, S., Minakova, V., 2023. Objects in embodied sociolinguistics: Mind the door in research group meetings. Language in Society. 52(2), 183–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404522000082
[47] Burkette, A., 2025. Language, material culture, and materiality in Appalachia. Journal of Appalachian Studies. 31(1), 44–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5406/23288612.31.1.04
[48] Zhao, X., Shen, R., Zhao, X., 2020. A cognitive-semiotic construct of metaphor in discourse: A corpus-based approach. Chinese Semiotic Studies. 16(1), 119–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/css-2020-0006
[49] Turner, M., 2020. Constructions and creativity. Cognitive Semiotics. 13(1), 20202019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2019
[50] Pang, Y., Li, L., 2024. Deliberate metaphors in English as a lingua franca interactions: Characteristics and constructing processes. Asian Englishes. 26(1), 156–173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13488678.2023.2216867
[51] Snowdon, C.J., Eklund Karlsson, L., 2021. A critical discourse analysis of representations of travellers in public policies in Ireland. Societies. 11(1), 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11010014
[52] Elyas, T., Aljabri, A., 2020. Representations of Saudi men's guardianship system and women's freedom to travel in Western newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Contemporary Review of the Middle East. 7(3), 339–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2347798920921977
[53] Males, J., Van Aelst, P., 2021. Did the Blue Planet set the agenda for plastic pollution? An explorative study on the influence of a documentary on the public, media and political agendas. Environmental Communication. 15(1), 40–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1780458
[54] Zhu, L., 2022. Framing the political conflict discourse in Chinese media: A case study of Sino-US trade dispute. Journal of Language and Politics. 21(6), 867–889. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.21005.zhu
[55] Flusberg, S.J., Matlock, T., Thibodeau, P.H., 2017. Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environmental Communication. 11(6), 769–783. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1289111
[56] Atanasova, D., Koteyko, N., 2017. Metaphors in Guardian Online and Mail Online opinion-page content on climate change: War, religion, and politics. Environmental Communication. 11(4), 452–469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1024705
[57] Lamarche, V.M., 2020. Socially connected and COVID-19 prepared: The influence of sociorelational safety on perceived importance of COVID-19 precautions and trust in government responses. Social Psychological Bulletin. 15(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.4409
[58] Lohmeyer, B.A., Taylor, N., 2021. War, heroes and sacrifice: Masking neoliberal violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Critical Sociology. 47(4–5), 625–639. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520975824
[59] Hammack, P.L., Toolis, E.E., 2016. Putting the social into personal identity: The master narrative as root metaphor for psychological and developmental science: Commentary on McLean and Syed. Human Development. 58(6), 350–364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000446054
[60] Moss, S.M., Sandbakken, E.M., 2021. “Everybody needs to do their part, so we can get this under control.” Reactions to the Norwegian government meta-narratives on COVID-19 measures. Political Psychology. 42(5), 881–898. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12727
[61] Storjohann, P., 2025. Neologisms and their functions in critical discourse. Lexikos. 35, 318–343.
[62] Riemer, K., Peter, S., 2021. Algorithmic audiencing: Why we need to rethink free speech on social media. Journal of Information Technology. 36(4), 409–426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962211013358
[63] Hasell, A., 2021. Shared emotion: The social amplification of partisan news on Twitter. Digital Journalism. 9(8), 1085–1102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2020.1831937
[64] Heidegger, M., 2009. The question concerning technology. In: Hanks, C. (Ed.). Technology and Values: Essential Readings. Wiley-Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA.
[65] Ellul, J., 2003. The “autonomy” of the technological phenomenon. In: Scharff, R. (Ed.). Philosophy of Technology: The Technological Condition. Blackwell Publishing: Malden, MA, USA.
[66] Dressler, M., 2019. The Social Construction of Reality (1966) revisited: Epistemology and theorizing in the study of religion. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion. 31(2), 120–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341434
[67] Jimenez, T., Arndt, J., Landau, M.J., 2021. Walls block waves: Using an inundation metaphor of immigration predicts support for a border wall. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 9(1), e6383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6383
[68] Martin, C.A., 2023. Influxes and invaders: The intersections between the metaphoric construction of immigrant otherness and ethnonationalism. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 46(7), 1478–1501. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2022.2142062
[69] Kang, J., Kwon, I., 2024. The COVID-19 pandemic and changing meanings of flatten the curve: A cognitive semantic approach. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. 22(2), 505–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00158.kan
[70] Yan, Z., 2020. Unprecedented pandemic, unprecedented shift, and unprecedented opportunity. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. 2(2), 110–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.192
[71] Butler, C.S., Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M., 2021. Social and physical distance/distancing: A corpus-based analysis of recent changes in usage. Corpus Pragmatics. 5(4), 427–462. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-021-00107-2
[72] Bruine de Bruin, W., Kruke, L., Sinatra, G.M., et al., 2024. Should we change the term we use for “climate change”? Evidence from a national US terminology experiment. Climatic Change. 177(8), 129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-024-03786-3
[73] Haueis, P., 2024. Climate concepts for supporting political goals of mitigation and adaptation: The case for “climate crisis”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. 15(5), e893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.893
[74] O'Halloran, O., Cook, N., 2024. Breaking the silence: Exploring women's experiences of participating in the #MeToo movement. Feminist Media Studies. 24(6), 1371–1385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2023.2231656
[75] Pradhana, G.A., Tania, S., 2021. Hyperreality of #BlackLivesMatter movement on social media. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication. 37(3), 288–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2021-3703-17
Downloads
How to Cite
Copyright & License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dominic Bryan San Jose
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Submit Manuscript