Representation of Kazakhstan as a Mediator between East and West in American Analytical Media

This article examines the representation of Kazakhstan in American media discourse through the lens of its mediating role between East and West. The relevance of the research is determined by the growing attention of international media to Central Asia amid the transformation of international relations, intensifying geopolitical competition, and the emergence of new transport and logistics routes across Eurasia. Accordingly, the analysis of the linguistic and discursive mechanisms underlying Kazakhstan’s international image is of primary concern. The aim of the study is to identify the linguistic and discursive means employed by American media to construct the image of Kazakhstan as a mediating state. The scientific significance of the work lies in expanding the idea of the mechanisms through which the international image of states is constructed in the contemporary media environment; its practical significance is associated with the potential application of the findings in the fields of media linguistics, political communication, and international relations. The research material is based on ten publications from the American analytical and public affairs media outlets Foreign Policy, The Diplomat, Forbes, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, published between 2021 and 2026. The methodological framework of the research involves discourse analysis, linguistic-semantic analysis, and conceptual metaphor analysis. The findings demonstrate that, within the examined corpus of American analytical media, Kazakhstan is predominantly portrayed as a state facilitating interaction among diverse political, economic, and geographical spaces. The construction of this image is primarily based on the concepts of bridge, diplomacy, neutrality, balancing, Middle Corridor, connectivity, and hub, which collectively constitute a coherent discursive model of mediation. The study further reveals that Kazakhstan’s mediating role is articulated across three principal dimensions: geopolitical, diplomatic, and economic-infrastructural. The novelty of the study lies in the systematization of the principal discursive models through which Kazakhstan is represented as a mediating state in American analytical media. The results show that several of the analyzed publications construct a positive image of the country associated with stability, openness, and constructive international cooperation. The findings may be used in the study of international media discourse and in developing strategies to promote a positive image of Kazakhstan.

1. Anholt, S. (2007) Competitive Identity: The New Brand Management for Nations, Cities and Regions. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 134 p. (in English)

2. Ashirbekova, G.Sh., Abylhanova, A.K. (2022) Qazaqstannyng mediaobrazy: tarihi tazhiribe zhane qalyptasu zholdary. Vestnik Evrazijskogo nacional`nogo universiteta imeni L.N. Gumileva. Serija Zhurnalistika. No.1(138). 68-78-bb. [Ashirbekova, G.Sh., Abylkhanova, A.K. (2022) Kazakhstan's media image: historical experience and ways of formation. Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Journalism Series. No.1(138). Pp. 68-78.] (in Kazakh)

3. Buhmann, A., Ingenhoff, D. (2015) The 4D Model of the Country Image: An Integrative Approach from the Perspective of Communication Management. International Communication Gazette. Vol. 77(1). Pp. 102-124. (in English)

4. Clarke, M. (2020) Kazakhstan's Multi-Vector Foreign Policy: Diminishing Returns in an Era of Great Power Competition? Asia Policy. Vol. 15. No. 4. Pp. 65-84. (in English)

5. Fairclough, N. (2015) Language and Power. 3rd ed. London: Routledge. 274 p. (in English)

6. Isaacs, R., Marat, E. (2021) Media and Politics in Central Asia. London: Lexington Books. 256 p. (in English)

7. Kassen, M. (2023) Understanding Kazakhstan's Transit Potential and the Middle Corridor. Journal of Eurasian Studies. Vol. 14. No. 2. Pp. 155-169. (in English)

8. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (2003) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 276 p. (in English)

9. Laruelle, M. (2022) Central Asia and the New Silk Road. Asian Affairs. Vol. 53. No. 1. Pp. 75-91. (in English)

10. Melissen, J. (Ed.) (2005) The New Public Diplomacy: Soft Power in International Relations. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 221 p. (in English)

11. Shejgal, E.I. (2004) Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa. Moskva: Gnozis. [Sheigal, E.I. (2004) Semiotics of Political Discourse. Moscow: Gnosis.] (in Russian)

12. Skorobogatova, L.V. (2017) Konceptual`naja metafora v politicheskom diskurse: problemy perevoda. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija 9. Vol. 15. S. 69-72. [Skorobogatova, L.V. (2017) Conceptual metaphor in political discourse: problems of translation. Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Series 9. Vol. 15. Pp. 69-72.] (in Russian)

13. Smagulova, B.G., Zharkynbekova, Sh.K. (2022) Metaforicheskaja reprezentacija obraza Kazahstana v rossijskom mediadiskurse (za period s 2010 po 2021 gg.). Vestnik Evrazijskogo nacional`nogo universiteta imeni L.N. Gumileva. Serija Filologija. No. 1(138). S. 96-111. [Smagulova, B.G., Zharkynbekova, Sh.K. (2022) Metaphorical representation of Kazakhstan's image in the Russian media discourse (2010–2021). Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. Philology Series. No. 1(138). Pp. 96-111.] (in Russian)

14. Van Dijk, T.A. (2008) Discourse and Power. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 308 p. (in English)

15. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., Liebhart, K. (2009) The Discursive Construction of National Identity. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 288 p. (in English)