Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:42:21.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigating intertextuality and interdiscursivity in evaluation: the case of conceptual blending

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2017

STELLA BULLO
STELLA BULLO*
Affiliation:
Manchester Metropolitan University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present paper investigates the sense making practices of participants in interaction within the context of reception studies of advertising and explores the cognitive nature of intertextuality and interdiscursivity as evidence of conceptual integration. The paper argues that sense making, through its intertextual and interdiscursive nature, is a carrier of attitudinal disposition which is manifested in the lexical selection of evaluative items arising from conceptual integration. The data examined for this study were collected from informants in focus groups when discussing a series of printed adverts that make reference to works of art. The results of the analysis indicate that intertextuality and interdiscursivity can be seen as constituting evidence of the conceptual phenomena of blending theory in sense making from where evaluative disposition emerges. They further suggest that both are processes in the audience’s sense making process rather than merely a feature of texts.

Keywords

intertextualityinterdiscursivityconceptual blendingappraisalsense making
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 709 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

references

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Augoustinos, M., Walker, I., & Donaghue, N. (2006). Social cognition: an integrated introduction. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays, 2nd ed., trans. Emerson, C. & Holquist, M., ed. Holquist, M.. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barranger, M. S. (2004). Understanding plays. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Bullo, S. (2014). Evaluation in advertising reception: a socio-cognitive study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (1998). Blending as a central process of grammar. Online: <http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/AY2013/cs7601_spring/papers/Fauconnier_Turner.pdf> (last accessed August 2015).+(last+accessed+August+2015).>Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Forceville, C. (2012). Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors. In Jones, R. (Ed.), Discourse and creativity (pp. 113–132). Harlow: Pearson/Longman.Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. (2001). Attitudes, social representations and beyond. In Deaux, K. & Philogène, G. (Eds.), Representations of the social: bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 228–241). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: new perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.) (2003). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1–27). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koller, V. (2010). Lesbian nation: a case of multiple interdiscursivity. In de Cillia, R., Gruber, H., Menz, F., & Krzyzanowski, M. (Eds.), Discourse, politics, identity (pp. 369–381). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In Kristeva, J. & Moi, T. (Eds.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 35–61). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Meinhof, U., & Smith, J. (Eds.) (2000). Intertextuality and the media: from genre to everyday life (pp. 1–17). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Meinhof, U., & van Leeuwen, T. (2000). Viewers’ worlds: image, music, text and The Rock ’n’ Roll Years . In Meinhof, U. & Smith, J. (Eds.), Intertextuality and the media: from genre to everyday life (pp. 61–75). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Petty, R., Wegener, D., & Fabrigar, L. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609–647.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratkanis, A. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1989). A socio-cognitive model of attitude structure and function. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 22 (pp. 245–285). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rogers, Y. (2006). Distributed cognition and communication. In Brown, K. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. (2nd edition.). Elsevier. Pp. 731–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E. (2012). Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. In Dancygier, B., Sanders, J., & Vandelanotte, L. (Eds.), Textual choices in discourse: a view from cognitive linguistics (pp. 111–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: a multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
van Heerden, C. (2009). How religion might inform our conceptualization of reality: a cognitive linguistic investigation. European Journal of Science and Theology, 5(4), 1–21.Google Scholar