Skip to content
Accessible Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton November 8, 2016

The rhetorics of fictive interaction in advertising: The case for imagined direct speech in argumentation

Line Brandt
From the journal Cognitive Semiotics
An erratum for this article can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-9999
An erratum for this article can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2018-0008

Abstract

The paper examines imagined dialogue, aka fictive (verbal) interaction, in the strategically motivated discourse of advertising campaigns, i. e., discourse designed for the specific purpose of promoting a particular agenda or commercial product. The paper furthermore explores the grammatical aspect of the examined direct-speech metonymies. Though excluded so far from the grammars of Germanic languages, embedded utterances may in fact function as heads or modifiers in syntactic phrases and as sentence functions (e. g., direct object, verb). The overall aim of this paper is to demonstrate how embedded utterances function linguistically as well as rhetorically in the discourse of marketing – a particularly high-stakes genre of professional communication – and to stipulate hypotheses concerning strategic motivations for this employment of non-quotational direct speech.

Acknowledgements

Esther Pascual deserves acknowledgement for her initial discovery of the fictive interaction phenomenon, for turning it into an area of systematic studies, and not least for collecting data in a comprehensive databank, from which many of the examples analyzed here originate. The databank contains more than 10,000 examples in a variety of languages, approximately 100 of which are attested examples of advertisements or TV commercials, primarily in Danish, Dutch, English, and Spanish. A number of examples in this paper reoccur in a co-authored paper (Brandt and Pascual) in (eds.) Pascual & Sandler (The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction, 2016).

References

Arcand, R. & N. Bourbeau. 1995. La communication efficace. De l’intention aux moyens d’expression. Anjou: CEC.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, L. 2008. A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction, 109–148. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, L. 2010. Language and enunciation—A cognitive inquiry with special focus on conceptual integration in semiotic meaning construction. PhD dissertation. Aarhus University.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, L. 2013. The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, P. 2004. Spaces, domains, and meaning: Essays in cognitive semiotics. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Charteris-Black, J. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 2009. Of minds and language: A dialogue with noam chomsky in the basque country. M. Piattelli-Palmarini, J. Uriagereka, & P. Salaburu, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1984/1994. Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Fauconnier, G. 1997. Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis —An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.Search in Google Scholar

Jakobson, R. 1960. Closing statements: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. W. 2001. Dynamicity in grammar. Axiomathes 12. 7–33.Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. 1996. Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

McGregor, W. 1994. Warrwa. In Languages of the World/Materials 89. München-Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, E. 2002. Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. PhD dissertation. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series 68.Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, E. 2006. Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(2). 245–267.Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, E. 2014. Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, E., E. Królak & T. A. J. M. Janssen. 2013. Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2). 345–366.Search in Google Scholar

Pascual, E. & S. Sandler (eds.). 2016. The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar

Scollo, M. 2007. Mass media appropriations: Communication, culture, and everyday social life. PhD dissertation. University of Massachusetts.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-11-8
Published in Print: 2018-3-26

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton