METADATA

Title: Conceptual re-contextualizations and re-(re-)-contextualizations: The story of ‘sglobka’

 

Vol. 13(2), 2025, pp. 8-23

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46687/PPPJ4974.

 

Author: Nelly Tincheva

About the author: Nelly Tincheva, DSc, is a Professor in Cognitive Linguistics and Discourse Analysis at the Department of British and American Studies, Sofia University ‘St. Kliment Ohridski’. She lectures in Text and Cognition, Discourse Analysis, Political Discourse, and Research Methods. Her research and publications are primarily associated with Cognitive Sociolinguistics, (Multimedia) Text Analysis, and Pragmatics.

E-mail: tincheva@uni-sofia.bg             

ORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7383-5939

 

Link: http://silc.fhn-shu.com/issues/2025-2/SILC_2025_Vol_13_Issue_2_008-023_16.pdf  

 

Citation (APA style): Tincheva, N. (2025). Conceptual re-contextualizations and re-(re-)-contextualizations: The story of ‘sglobka’. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 13(2), 8-23. https://doi.org/10.46687/PPPJ4974.

 

Abstract: ‘Sglobka’ is a word that entered abruptly Bulgarian political discourse in 2023. Before that, ‘sglobka’ had existed only as a technical term designating the manner of conjoining wooden or metal components. Within hours of its first public appearance in reference to the then Bulgarian government, ‘sglobka’ went viral. It even became the 2023 Bulgarian Word-of-the-year runner-up.

The main argument underlying this investigation sees the transition of SGLOBKA from the domain of technical discourse to the domain of political discourse as a process of cognitive re-contextualization. The theoretical framework of the investigation is that of Cultural Linguistics, harmonized with cognitive-sociolinguistic research techniques.

The paper first establishes how the concept of SGLOBKA came to be re-contextualized against the political domain through its mediatized uses. Then the paper presents the results from a questionnaire-based study revealing how SGLOBKA is conceptualized by Bulgarians at the present stage of the concept’s evolution. The paper also reports on a probe revealing how SGLOBKA is conceptualized by certain UK political actors.

Key words: political discourse, conceptualization, cognitive sociolinguistics, Word of the year

 

References:

 Alpha Research. (2022). Усещането за предсрочни избори размества електоралните пластове. https://alpharesearch.bg/post/999-useshtaneto-za-predsrochni-izbori-razmestva-elektoralnite-plastove.html (Transliteration: Useshtaneto za predsrochni izbori razmestva elektoralnite plastove. Alpha Research. (2022). https://alpharesearch.bg/post/999-useshtaneto-za-predsrochni-izbori-razmestva-elektoralnite-plastove.html)

Anter, A. (2014). Max Weber’s Theory of the Modern State: Origins, Structure and Significance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137364906

Barcelona, A. (2011). Reviewing the properties and prototype structure of metonymy. Human cognitive processing (pp. 7-58). Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.28.02bar

Barsalou, L. W. (2006). Ad Hoc Categories. Memory and Cognition, 11, 211-27. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196968

Barsalou, L. W. (2023). Implications of Grounded Cognition for Conceptual Processing Across Cultures. Topics in Cognitive Science, 15 (4), 648-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12661

Benczes, R., & Ságvári, B. (2018). Where metaphors really come from: Social factors as contextual influence in Hungarian teenagers’ metaphorical conceptualizations of life. Cognitive Linguistics, 29 (1), 121-154. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0139

Bernstein, B. (1990). The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse: Class Codes and Control, vol. IV. London: Routledge.

Callies, M., & Onysko, A. (2017). Metaphor variation in Englishes around the world. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 4 (1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.4.1.01cal

Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501706

Charteris-Black, J. (2017.) Fire metaphors: Discourses of awe and authority. London: Bloomsbury.

Connolly, J. (2014). Recontextualisation, resemiotisation and their analysis in terms of an FDG-based framework. Pragmatics, 24 (2), 377–397. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.2.09con

Croft, W. A. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. Human Cognitive Processing, 24, 395–420. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.25cro

‌Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (1992). Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fairclough, N. (1988). Discourse representation in media discourse. Sociolinguistics, 17, 125-139.

Fairclough, N. (2004). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078

Firth, J. (1950). Personality and language in society. The Sociological Review, a42(1), 37-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1950.tb02460.x

Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (2010). Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461

Givón, T. (2005). Context as Other Minds. The Pragmatics of Sociality, Cognition and Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130

Gruber, H., Haugh, M., & Xie, C. (2023). Recontextualization: Modes, media, and practices. Frontiers in Communication, 8, 1164897. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1164897

Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Deakin University Press.

Hampl, M. (2012). Metaphor as an element of persuasion in political discourse. Communications – Scientific Letters of the University of Zilina, 14(1), 40-43. https://doi.org/10.26552/com.c.2012.1.40-43

Hart, C. (2023). Frames, framing and framing effects in cognitive CDA. Discourse Studies, 25(2), 247-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231155071

Hollmann, W. B. (2017). Cognitive Sociolinguistics. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 533-548). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.034

Hymes, D. (1964). Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row.

Kóczy, J. B., & Brdar-Szabó, R. (2023). Introduction. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 10(2), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00100.bar

Körner, A., Castillo, M., Drijvers, L., Fischer, M. H., Günther, F., Marelli, M., Platonova, O., Rinaldi, L., Shaki, S., Trujillo, J. P., Tsaregorodtseva, O., & Glenberg, A. M. (2023). Embodied processing at six linguistic granularity levels: A consensus paper. Journal of Cognition, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.231

Kristiansen, G, Karlien, F., De Pascale, S., Rosseel, L., & Weiwei, Zh. (2022). Cognitive sociolinguistics revisited. (2021c). In: De Gruyter eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110733945

Krzyżanowski, M. (2016). Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society, 27 (3), 308-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516630901

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh. The embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, G. (1996). Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (2007). Cognitive models and prototype theory. In V. Evans, B. Bergen & J. Zinken (Eds.), The Cognitive Linguistics reader (pp. 132-168). London: Equinox.

Langacker, R. W. (1997). The contextual basis of cognitive semantics. In J. Nuyts & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and Conceptualization (pp. 229-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086677.010

Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143

Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001

Lewis, D. (1972). General semantics. In D. Davidson & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Synthese Library (pp 169–218). vol. 40. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_7

Linell, P. (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text & Talk, 18 (2), 143-158. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.2.143

Malinowski, B. (1923). The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), The Meaning of Meaning (pp. 296-336). New York: Harcourt Brace.

Moreno-Fernandez, F. (2016). A framework for cognitive Sociolinguistics. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315545448

Musolff, A. (2005). Metaphor scenarios in public discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 21(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2101_2

Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Musolff, A. (2021). National Conceptualisations of the Body Politic. Cultural Linguistics. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8740-5

Musolff, A. (2022). Universality and/or cultural specificity of metaphors and analogies? NATIONS as BODIES/PERSONS. Synthese Library, 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90688-7_20

Polzenhagen, F., Wolf, H.-G., Latić, D., & Peters, A. (2024). World Englishes and cultural linguistics: Theory and research. World Englishes, 43(3), 355-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12655

Pütz, M., Robinson, J. A., & Reif, M. (Eds.).  (2014). Cognitive sociolinguistics. Social and cultural variation in cognition and language use. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.59

Romano, M. (2024). Metaphor in socio-political contexts: Current crises. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111001364

Rosch, E. (1973). Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0

Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive Reference Points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532-547. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90021-3

Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.1

Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics: Cultural conceptualisations and language. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.8

Tincheva, N. (2015). Text structure: A window into discourse, context and mind. Sofia: POLIS.

Tincheva, N. (2023). ‘Narrative structure’, ‘rhetorical structure’, ‘text structure’: A conceptual complex meets text- and discourse‑world profiling shifts. English Text Construction, 16 (1), 31-59. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.21016.tin

van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Relevance assignment in discourse comprehension. Discourse Processes, 2, 113-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638537909544458

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. SAGE Publications.

van Dijk, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse. How social contexts control text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575273

van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and knowledge. A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404

сглобка (n.d.). Dictionary of Bulgarian Language/BAS. https://ibl.bas.bg/en/ (Transliteration: ‘sglobka’ (n.d.). Rechnik na balgarskiya ezik/ BAS. https://ibl.bas.bg/en/)