A semantics and pragmatics professor is conducting a
workshop on euphemism, hedging, and evaluative
language in academic discourse, using the influencer
research article as illustrative material. The professor
draws attention to expressions like "lesser-known side,"
"dark side" (in quotation marks), "unchecked influence,"
"unintended consequences," and "proactively." The
professor explains how academic writers strategically
employ evaluative lexis, metaphorical framing, and
hedging devices to construct authoritative yet measured
arguments about controversial topics. When discussing
the pragmatic functions of these linguistic choices and
their role in maintaining academic credibility while making
strong claims about negative phenomena, particularly
analyzing how quotation marks around "dark side" signal
metalinguistic awareness and how adverbs like "proactively" carry implicit evaluative force, which
statement demonstrates the most sophisticated
understanding of semantic nuance and pragmatic
functionality in academic discourse?

Question

O texto seguinte servirá de base para responder à questão.
New research unveils the "dark side" of social media
influencers and their impact on marketing and
consumer behaviour
Social media influencers (SMIs) pose psychological,
health and security risks and need tighter regulation, a
new study finds.
SMIs have revolutionised marketing, shaping consumer
behaviour, brand strategies, and even societal norms.
However, new research exposes a lesser-known side of
influencer culture, one that raises ethical, psychological,
and regulatory concerns.
 A recent study by the University of Portsmouth
systematically examines the negative impacts of SMIs,
highlighting issues such as misinformation, endorsement
 of dangerous products, unrealistic beauty standards, the
fostering of a comparison culture, deceptive
consumption, and privacy risks.
With influencer marketing projected to reach an
estimated $480 billion by 2027, companies increasingly
rely on SMIs to promote products and foster consumer
trust.
 A Digital Marketing Institute (2024) survey found that 60
per cent of consumers trust influencer recommendations,
with nearly half of all purchasing decisions being
influenced by these endorsements. However, as
influencer culture grows, so do concerns about its
unintended consequences. Many SMIs act as opinion leaders or experts within their
respective areas, frequently reviewing products and
leveraging their authority, expertise, or relationships with
followers to influence purchasing decisions. Some inspire
and entertain; others deceive and upset. The deception
and damage, and their impact on consumption, need to
be carefully regulated.
Yuksel Ekinci, Professor of Marketing and Sales at the
University of Portsmouth
The paper, published in Psychology and Marketing,
warns power of SMIs is creating a worrying consumer
landscape. Unlike traditional celebrities, whose fame is
typically rooted in institutional settings - such as acting,
music, or sports - SMIs gain recognition through social media platforms, often relying on personal branding and
consistent engagement with their audiences.
Yuksel Ekinci, Professor of Marketing and Sales at the
University of Portsmouth, said: "Many SMIs act as
opinion leaders or experts within their respective areas,
frequently reviewing products and leveraging their
authority, expertise, or relationships with followers to
influence purchasing decisions. Some inspire and
entertain; others deceive and upset. The deception and
damage, and their impact on consumption, need to be
carefully regulated."
This study organises the negative aspects of influencer
marketing into six key themes:
1. Promotion of harmful products − SMIs often endorse
unhealthy or dangerous products such as diet pills, detox
teas, and alcohol without full disclosure, influencing
consumption habits, particularly among younger
audiences.
2. Dissemination of misinformation − many influencers,
despite lacking expertise, spread false information about
health, politics, and social issues, leading to widespread
disinformation.3. Reinforcement of unrealistic beauty standards − by
presenting filtered and curated images, influencers
contribute to body dissatisfaction, low self-esteem, and
harmful beauty practices.
4. Fostering of comparison culture − influencer-driven
content fuels lifestyle envy and social anxiety, leading to
negative self-comparison and diminished wellbeing.
5. Deceptive consumption practices − some influencers
engage in unethical behaviours such as undisclosed
sponsorships, promotion of counterfeit goods, and
misleading advertisements, undermining consumer trust.
6. Privacy concerns − the extensive data collection and
sharing by influencers raise significant security and
regulatory issues, posing risks for both influencers and
followers.
Social media influencers hold immense power over
consumer decisions and cultural norms. While they
provide entertainment, inspiration, and brand
engagement, the unchecked influence of some SMIs can
lead to serious ethical and psychological consequences.
Our study highlights the urgency for both academic and
industry stakeholders to address these challenges
proactively.
Dr Georgia Buckle, Research Fellow in the School of
Accounting, Economics and Finance at the University of
PortsmouthThe study calls for more stringent oversight, increased
transparency, and ethical marketing strategies to mitigate
these risks. Researchers suggest the following strategies
for policymakers and marketeers:
•Transparency and ethical compliance: brands must
enforce clear disclosure policies to ensure responsible
influencer partnerships.

• Regulation and consumer protection: governments should strengthen policies on influencer marketing to
prevent deceptive practices and misinformation.

• Mental health awareness: companies and influencers
must prioritize authentic content that promotes well-being
rather than unattainable ideals.

• Data privacy protections: stronger safeguards and
awareness campaigns are needed to protect users from
privacy breaches and data exploitation.
Dr Georgia Buckle, Research Fellow in the School of
Accounting, Economics and Finance at the University of
Portsmouth, said: "Social media influencers hold
immense power over consumer decisions and cultural
norms. While they provide entertainment, inspiration, and
brand engagement, the unchecked influence of some
SMIs can lead to serious ethical and psychological
consequences. Our study highlights the urgency for both
academic and industry stakeholders to address these
challenges proactively."
This research offers a critical framework for analysing
influencer culture beyond its commercial benefits,
emphasising the need for ethical marketing practices and
 a healthier digital ecosystem.https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/news/new-research-unv
eils-the-dark-side-of-social-media-influencers-and-their-impact-on-mark
eting-and-consumer-behaviour A semantics and pragmatics professor is conducting a
workshop on euphemism, hedging, and evaluative
language in academic discourse, using the influencer
research article as illustrative material. The professor
draws attention to expressions like "lesser-known side,"
"dark side" (in quotation marks), "unchecked influence,"
"unintended consequences," and "proactively." The
professor explains how academic writers strategically
employ evaluative lexis, metaphorical framing, and
hedging devices to construct authoritative yet measured
arguments about controversial topics. When discussing
the pragmatic functions of these linguistic choices and
their role in maintaining academic credibility while making
strong claims about negative phenomena, particularly
analyzing how quotation marks around "dark side" signal
metalinguistic awareness and how adverbs like "proactively" carry implicit evaluative force, which
statement demonstrates the most sophisticated
understanding of semantic nuance and pragmatic
functionality in academic discourse? Alternativa A: Academic language must be entirely neutral and
descriptive without any evaluative dimension; the
presence of terms suggesting negative evaluation
proves this text is opinion piece rather than legitimate
research article. Ou Alternativa B: The quotation marks around "dark side" signal
metaphorical usage while maintaining rhetorical
impact; "proactively" carries positive evaluation;
"lesser-known" provides appropriate hedging - these
strategic choices enable strong critical arguments
while maintaining academic credibility and register. Ou Alternativa C: Quotation marks around "dark side" indicate the
authors are directly quoting another source verbatim
and have no other pragmatic function; evaluative
language is accidental rather than strategic rhetorical
choice in academic writing.  Ou Alternativa D: All evaluative language should be eliminated from
academic writing to maintain complete objectivity;
terms like "dark side" represent unscientific emotional
language inappropriate for scholarly discourse and
undermine the research's credibility entirely.

Qconcursos · Accepted Answer

Alternativa [B] The quotation marks around "dark side" signal
metaphorical usage while maintaining rhetorical
impact; "proactively" carries positive evaluation;
"lesser-known" provides appropriate hedging - these
strategic choices enable strong critical arguments
while maintaining academic credibility and register. Gabarito: BFundamento decisivo: O decisivo era comparar as alternativas com as marcas linguísticas do texto-base e verificar qual delas descrevia corretamente a função pragmática de aspas, hedging e avaliação implícita sem reduzir esses recursos a citação literal ou a neutralidade absoluta.Tema central: pragmática no discurso acadêmicoAnálise das alternativasAErradaEstá errada porque parte de uma premissa falsa: discurso acadêmico não exige neutralidade absoluta nem ausência total de avaliação. Pela base, linguagem acadêmica argumentativa pode conter posicionamento avaliativo controlado; por isso, a presença de léxico avaliativo não transforma automaticamente o texto em opinion piece.BCertaA alternativa B está correta porque identifica, de forma integrada, três funções semântico-pragmáticas compatíveis com o texto. As aspas em "dark side" não obrigam leitura de citação literal; elas marcam uma formulação monitorada e metafórica, preservando o efeito retórico. "Proactively" não é neutro: orienta para uma conduta vista como desejável, portanto carrega avaliação positiva-normativa implícita. Já "lesser-known" qualifica e atenua a formulação, funcionando como hedging. Esse conjunto permite ao texto sustentar crítica forte sem abandonar o registro acadêmico controlado.CErradaEstá errada porque reduz indevidamente as aspas a marca de citação literal, quando a base afirma que elas também podem sinalizar distanciamento, rótulo ou enquadramento metafórico. Além disso, a alternativa nega o caráter estratégico da linguagem avaliativa, contrariando a análise do texto como argumentação acadêmica crítica e cautelosa.DErradaEstá errada porque repete a exigência absoluta de eliminar toda avaliação da escrita acadêmica, algo não sustentado pela base. Também conclui de modo extremo que expressões avaliativas anulam a credibilidade científica, quando o critério correto é outro: avaliação pode existir, desde que controlada por escolhas discursivas compatíveis com o registro acadêmico.Pegadinha da questãoA confusão real era dupla: tratar objetividade acadêmica como ausência completa de avaliação e interpretar aspas apenas como citação literal, ignorando função metalinguística e de enquadramento.Dica para questões semelhantesEm questões de discurso acadêmico, não elimine automaticamente alternativas com avaliação; verifique se a avaliação está controlada por qualificação, cautela e registro técnico.Quando houver aspas em uma expressão, teste primeiro funções como distanciamento, rotulação ou metáfora marcada antes de concluir que se trata de citação literal.Advérbios podem carregar avaliação implícita; se orientam o leitor para uma resposta desejável, não são semanticamente neutros.Hedging não enfraquece necessariamente a tese; muitas vezes ele gradua a afirmação e aumenta a credibilidade argumentativa.

🚀 Mais performance?

🚀 Mais performance?

A semantics and pragmatics professor is conducting a worksh...

Gabarito comentado

Gabarito: B

Clique para visualizar este gabarito

Questões de assuntos semelhantes

Provas relacionadas