A Pragmatic Analysis of Persuasive Strategies in Fake News in Facebook and X platforms
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/wjfh.Vol22.Iss2.1671Keywords:
fake news, cognitive frames, pragmatic analysis, persuasive strategies, social mediaAbstract
This study examines how online platforms such as Facebook and X contribute to the spread of fake news as a persuasive communicative practice influencing opinions, attitudes, and decision-making. It searches to fill the gap of the cognitive frames underlying fake news and analyze pragmatically how these frames function to achieve persuasion. The research adopts a descriptive design based on content analysis of sixty highly engaged fake reports by adopting cognitive blend theory, evenly selected from both platforms. Findings show that fake news frequently relies on fear, victimhood, moral polarization, and conspiracy frames, expressed through emotionally charged and strategic language. Persuasive techniques include hyperbole, implicatures, presuppositions, and indirectness to shape audience interpretation and response. These linguistic and cognitive strategies intensify message impact and credibility. The study concludes that understanding pragmatic cognitive framing is crucial for designing effective media-literacy interventions and strengthening public resistance to misinformation in digital communication environments.
Downloads
References
Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
Al-Mansoori, N. J. O. (2025). The poetics of unreality in the novel “A Small Death” by Muhammad Hasan Alwan. Wasit Journal for Human Sciences, 21(2), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.31185/wjfh.Vol21.Iss2.906.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Dynel, M. (2020). Disinformation and fake news in social media: Pragmatic perspectives. Journal of Pragmatics, 159, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.003
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
Jassim, H. A. H. (2024). Exploring semantic relations in the Qur’anic discourse of self: A study on textual syntax. Wasit Journal for Human Sciences, 20(56), 89–162. https://doi.org/10.31185/wjfh.Vol20.Iss56.xxx.
KhosraviNik, M. (2017). Social media critical discourse studies (SM-CDS). Critical Discourse Studies, 14(6), 582–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2017.1352003
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Saadoun, S. H., & Al-Dalfi, R. K. (2025). The linguistic responses of modern scholars to Al-Munjid dictionary by Louis Ma'louf (d. 1946): A study of plural forms as a model. Wasit Journal for Human Sciences, 21(1), 17–33. https://doi.org/10.31185/wjfh.Vol21.Iss1.xxx.
van Dijk, T. A. (2018). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359–383.
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Asst. Lect. Eman Hilal Nheir
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
