Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics Vanguard

A Multimodal Journal for the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Bergs, Alexander / Cohn, Abigail C. / Good, Jeff

Online
ISSN
2199-174X
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse

Todd Oakley
  • Corresponding author
  • Cognitive Science, Case Western Reserve University, Crawford Hall 6th Floor, Cleveland, OH 44106-7163, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-06-29 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0046

Abstract

This article explores the role fictive interaction plays in two recent political speeches during the 2012 election year in the United States. The first is actor Clint Eastwood’s keynote address to the Republican National Convention in which he engages in a fictional conversation with President Barack Obama; and the second is by Mark Sanford, former Republican governor of South Carolina and candidate for US Congress who stages a fictive debate with Democratic representative and minority party leader, Nancy Pelosi. Eastwood’s performance was roundly criticized in the media by partisans, pundits, reporters, and analysts across the political spectrum, many of whom openly speculated that the 82-year-old was exhibiting signs of senescence. Sanford’s performance did not receive the publicity of the former but was viewed by voters of South Carolina, and represents a much tighter and effective form of fictive interaction, eventually leading to his election to congress. The factors contributing to the failure of Eastwood’s performance and and those contributing to success of Sanford’s will be the focus of this analysis. Special attention will be paid to the multimodal dimensions of each performance.

Keywords: cognitive linguistics; construction grammar; fictive interaction; rhetorical situations

References

  • Bitzer, Lloyd. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1. 1–14.Google Scholar

  • Cánovas, Pagán & M. Turner. 2016. Generic integration templates for fictive communication. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction, 71–102. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

  • Oakley, T. 2009. From attention to meaning: Explorations in semiotics, linguistics, and rhetoric. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Pascual, Esther. 2014. Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar

  • Pascual, Esther & Todd Oakley. 2017. Fictive interaction. In Barbara Dancygier (ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics, 347–360. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Steinhauser, Paul. 2013. Crucial face-off between Sanford and Colbert Busch. CNN. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/29/crucial-face-off-between-sanford-and-colbert-busch/ (accessed 29 April).

  • Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.Google Scholar

  • Xiang, M. 2016. Real, imaginary, or fictive? Philosophical dialogues in an early Daoist text and its pictorial version. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction, 63–86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-07-04

Accepted: 2016-10-07

Published Online: 2017-06-29


Citation Information: Linguistics Vanguard, Volume 3, Issue s1, 20160046, ISSN (Online) 2199-174X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0046.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in