{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020328102710413694, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028530670470756064, 'mean_word_length': 5.418764302059497, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Typology of metaphors in popular science media discourse (based on National Geographic resources)

The article deals with the analysis of conceptual metaphors in media discourse on the basis of English popular science texts. The material for the research includes texts from National Geographic resources (2016–2020), namely, from the National Geographic Magazine and Nat Geo Wild TV channel covering articles on history, environment, natural science, animal life and geography. The aim of the survey is to define the types of conceptual metaphors (after A. Chudinov) and to determine the dominant tendencies of their functioning. To achieve the aim, we used the conceptual analysis when determining conceptual models and their classification according to the types. Despite a somewhat indeterminate status of the popular science genre and its place in the structure of media or scientific discourse, scholars agree that such texts are characterized by a simplified presentation of scientific notions that should be easily understood by the audience which does not have the respective scientific background, as well as by the use of stylistic devices to make the text more expressive. In the survey, we have defined that all four types of metaphorical models are used in popular science media texts: anthropomorphous, nature-morphous, sociomorphous and artefact metaphors. Sociomorphous and artefact metaphors have been used most widely. By using sociomorphous metaphors, the authors of popular science texts compare natural phenomena with social relations between people. Namely, the behavior of animals or the functioning of plants is compared with military, sports or professional activity of people. The most prominent type was that of the artefact metaphors. By using such metaphors, authors draw parallels between how the animal world operates or how natural phenomena happen, and how more familiar artificial objects function. The most dominant in this group was the metaphor with the source domain “machine”, which is mapped on such spheres as “natural phenomenon”, “member of the animal world” etc. In addition to this source domain, artefact metaphors also included such concepts as clothes, building, food products. A relatively insignificant number of anthropomorphous and nature-morphous metaphors could be explained by the fact that in order to conceptualize natural phenomena, authors tend to use domains from noncontiguous spheres. The results of the article contribute to better understanding of how popular science texts function. Further research in this direction could be done in the examination of other lingual cognitive features of such texts, namely in researching how conceptual metonymies function here, as well as survey of other stylistically expressive means in these texts.