Article

Linguistic Geoengineering: A New Paradigm for Discursive Infrastructure and Public Persuasion

Dominic Bryan San Jose ORCID

    Received: 21 Januar 2026 | Revised: 7 April 2026 | Accepted: 15 April 2026 | Published Online: 22 April 2026

    Abstract

    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

    Cognitive Linguistics, Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Discursive Infrastructure, Framing and Persuasion, Language and Power, Linguistic Geoengineering, Semiotics

    References
    1. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [15] Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 2008. Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA.
    16. [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. [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. [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. [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. [20] Foucault, M., 1971. Orders of discourse. Social Science Information. 10(2), 7–30.
    21. [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. [22] Entman, R.M., 1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication. 43(4), 51–58.
    23. [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. [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. [25] Hoey, M., 2012. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. Routledge: London, UK.
    26. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [38] Schliesser, E., 2019. Synthetic philosophy. Biology & Philosophy. 34(2), 19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-019-9673-3
    39. [39] Sapir, E., 1929. The status of linguistics as a science. Language. 5(4), 207–214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/409588
    40. [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. [41] Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1980. The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science. 4(2), 195–208.
    42. [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. [43] Cohn, N., Schilperoord, J., 2022. Reimagining language. Cognitive Science. 46(7), e13174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13174
    44. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [49] Turner, M., 2020. Constructions and creativity. Cognitive Semiotics. 13(1), 20202019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2020-2019
    50. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [61] Storjohann, P., 2025. Neologisms and their functions in critical discourse. Lexikos. 35, 318–343.
    62. [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. [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. [64] Heidegger, M., 2009. The question concerning technology. In: Hanks, C. (Ed.). Technology and Values: Essential Readings. Wiley-Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA.
    65. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [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
    Back to top