Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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

  • STELLA BULLO (a1)
abstract
<span class='sc'>abstract</span>

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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
AjzenI. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 2758.
AugoustinosM., WalkerI., & DonaghueN. (2006). Social cognition: an integrated introduction. London: Sage.
BakhtinM. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays, 2nd ed., trans. EmersonC. & HolquistM., ed. HolquistM.. Austin: University of Texas Press.
BarrangerM. S. (2004). Understanding plays. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
BulloS. (2014). Evaluation in advertising reception: a socio-cognitive study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
EaglyA. H., & ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
EvansV., & GreenM. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: an introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
FaircloughN. (1992). Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press.
FauconnierG., & TurnerM. (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).
FauconnierG., & TurnerM. (2002). The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
ForcevilleC. (2012). Creativity in pictorial and multimodal advertising metaphors. In JonesR. (Ed.), Discourse and creativity (pp. 113132). Harlow: Pearson/Longman.
GaskellG. (2001). Attitudes, social representations and beyond. In DeauxK. & PhilogèneG. (Eds.), Representations of the social: bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 228241). Oxford: Blackwell.
HallidayM. A. K., & MatthiessenC. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd ed. London: Arnold.
HartC. (2010). Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: new perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
HodgeR., & KressG. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
HunstonS., & ThompsonG. (Eds.) (2003). Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 127). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
KollerV. (2010). Lesbian nation: a case of multiple interdiscursivity. In de CilliaR., GruberH., MenzF., & KrzyzanowskiM. (Eds.), Discourse, politics, identity (pp. 369381). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
KristevaJ. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In KristevaJ. & MoiT. (Eds.), The Kristeva reader (pp. 3561). New York: Columbia University Press.
MartinJ. R., & WhiteP. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
MeinhofU., & SmithJ. (Eds.) (2000). Intertextuality and the media: from genre to everyday life (pp. 117). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
MeinhofU., & van LeeuwenT. (2000). Viewers’ worlds: image, music, text and The Rock ’n’ Roll Years . In MeinhofU. & SmithJ. (Eds.), Intertextuality and the media: from genre to everyday life (pp. 6175). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
PettyR., WegenerD., & FabrigarL. (1997). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 609647.
PratkanisA. R., & GreenwaldA. G. (1989). A socio-cognitive model of attitude structure and function. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 22 (pp. 245285). New York: Academic Press.
RogersY. (2006). Distributed cognition and communication. In BrownK. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. (2nd edition.). Elsevier. Pp. 731733.
SeminoE. (2012). Unrealistic scenarios, metaphorical blends and rhetorical strategies across genres. In DancygierB., SandersJ., & VandelanotteL. (Eds.), Textual choices in discourse: a view from cognitive linguistics (pp. 111136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
ThompsonG. (2004). Introducing functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Arnold.
van DijkT. A. (1998). Ideology: a multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
van HeerdenC. (2009). How religion might inform our conceptualization of reality: a cognitive linguistic investigation. European Journal of Science and Theology, 5(4), 121.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 22 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 139 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 27th April 2017 - 20th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.