The pragmatics of denial and resistance: Some theoretical and methodological considerations

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

This paper presents a theory of audience-resistance and speaker-denial. The paper commences with the problem of definition, encompassing an analysis of the scope and nature of denial and resistance. The data for this study were primarily obtained from mainstream and social media postings in two languages: English and Arabic. The article primarily draws on discourse and socio-cognitive frameworks. The paper’s principal question is how and why Arab and English speakers may resist or deny a remark. Previous research on resistance to figurative language has focused predominantly on the rhetorical trope of metaphor and on what drives the English political and media elite to reject a metaphoric expression. However, this raises an important question that is rarely asked: how and why do members of the general public resist verbal metaphors, and what about other tropes such as hyperbole and metonymy, other languages such as Arabic, and other modalities such as images and art forms? The paper argues that the existing literature on meaning negotiation and/or human dialogic action and behavior is riddled with fundamental theoretical, methodological, and analytical flaws. The paper aims to fill in this gap and has significant implications both for conceptual metaphor theory and for (non-)deliberate language use.

作者简介

Ahmed Abdel-Raheem

Siedlce University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: ahmedelsayed20017@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7547-150X

faculty at Siedlce University, Institute of Linguistics and Literary Studies, in Siedlce, Poland. Нe held lectureship and research positions at Umm al-Qura University in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland, and at both Leuphana University Luneburg and Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg in Germany. He is author of two monographs, Pictorial framing in moral politics: A corpus-based experimental study (2019, Routledge) and Frame flouting: A theory of language and mind (Routledge, forthcoming).

Siedlce, Poland

参考

  1. Amsalem, Eran & Alon Zoizner. 2022. Real, but limited: A meta-analytic assessment of framing effects in the political domain. British Journal of Political Science 52 (1). 221-237.
  2. Attardo, Salvatore. 2015. Humorous metaphors. In Geert Brône, Kurt Feyaerts & Tony Veale (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics and humor research, 91-110. Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  3. Baker, Paul. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  4. Baker, Paul. 2012. Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies 9 (3). 247-256.
  5. Barnden, John. 2020. Uniting irony, hyperbole and metaphor in an affect-centred, pretence-based framework. In Angeliki Athanasiadou & Herbert Colston (eds.), The diversity of irony, 15-65. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  6. Bateman, John. 2014. Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. London: Routledge.
  7. Bonalumi, Francesca, Feride Belma Bumin, Thom Scott-Phillips & Christophe Heintz. 2023. Communication and deniability: Moral and epistemic reactions to denials. Frontiers in Psychology 13. 1073213.
  8. Boogaart, Ronny, Henrike Jansen & Maarten van Leeuwen. 2022. “I was only quoting”: Shifting viewpoint and speaker commitment. In Laurence R. Horn (ed.), From lying to perjury: Linguistic and legal perspectives on lies and other falsehoods, 113-138. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  9. Brouwer, Susanne. 2019. The auditory foreign-language effect of moral decision making in highly proficient bilinguals. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 40 (10). 865-878.
  10. Casasanto, Daniel & Kyle Jasmin. 2012. The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics 23 (4). 643-674.
  11. Cienki, Alan. 1998. Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphorical expressions. In Jean-Pierre Koenig (ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap, 189-204. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications.
  12. Cody, Michael J. & Margaret L. McLaughlin. 1988. Acounts on trial: Oral arguments in traffic court. In Charles Antaki (ed.), Analysing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods, 113-126. London: Sage Publications, Inc.
  13. Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Clark, Billy. 2022. Pragmatics: The Basics. London & New York: Routledge.
  15. Croft, William & Esther J. Wood. 2000. Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In Liliana Albertazzi (ed.), Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach, 51-78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  16. Danto, Arthur C. 1997. Translation and betrayal. Anthropology and Aesthetics 32. 61-63. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20166986?origin=JSTOR-pdf
  17. Druckman, James N. 2001. On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics 63 (4). 1041-1066.
  18. Edwards, Janis L. 1997. Political Cartoons in the 1988 Presidential Campaign: Image, Metaphor, and Narrative. London: Garland Publishing.
  19. Elder, Chi-Hé & David Beaver. 2022. “We’re running out of fuel!”: When does miscommunication go unrepaired? Intercultural Pragmatics 19 (5). 541-570. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-5001
  20. El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2011. The pragmatics of humor reception: Young people’s responses to a newspaper cartoon. Humor 24 (1). 87-108. https://doi.org/10.1515/humr.2011.005
  21. Fetzer, Anita. 2007. Non-acceptances in context. Intercultural Pragmatics 4 (4). 493-520. https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2007.025
  22. Forceville, Charles. 2019. Review of Andreas Musolff (2016) Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 6 (1). 211-215.
  23. Forceville, Charles. 2020. Visual and Multimodal Communication. Applying the Relevance Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  24. Gazdar, Gerald. 1979. Pragmatics: Implicature, Presupposition, and Logical Form. New York: Academic Press.
  25. Gibbs, Raymond W. 2015. Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics 90. 77-87.
  26. Gibbs, Raymond W. & Josie Siman. 2021. How we resist metaphors. Language and Cognition 13 (4). 670-692. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2021.18
  27. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  28. Grady, Joseph. 1997. THEORIES ARE BUILDINGS revisited. Cognitive Linguistics 8 (4). 267-290. Cognitive Linguistics Bibliography (CogBib), https://www.degruyter.com/ database/COGBIB/entry/cogbib.4912/html (аccessed:25.02.2023).
  29. Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  30. Hanks, Patrick. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  31. Haugh, Michael. 2008. Intention and diverging interpretings of implicature in the “uncovered meat” sermon. Intercultural Pragmatics 5 (2). 201-228.
  32. Hoey, Michael. 2012. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
  33. Holt, Elizabeth & Jim O’Driscoll. 2021. Participation and footing. In Michael Haugh, Dániel Z. Kádár & Marina Terkourafi (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of sociopragmatics, 140-161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  34. Horn, Laurence Robert. 1972. On the Semantic Properties of Logical Operators in English. Mimeo: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  35. Ioannidis, John P. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2 (8). e124. 0696-0701.
  36. Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
  37. Kecskés, Istvan. 2023. Introduction. In Istvan Kecskes (ed.), Common Ground in First Language and Intercultural Interaction, 1-4. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  38. Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
  40. Lakoff, George. 2014. The All New Don’t Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
  41. Lakoff, George & Mark Turner. 1989. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  42. Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford Academic.
  43. Langton, Rae. 1993. Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy and Public Affairs 22 (4). 305-330.
  44. Ledgerwood, Alison. 2014. Introduction to the special section on advancing our methods and practices. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (3). 275-277.
  45. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
  46. Leech, Geoffrey. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  47. Levinson, Stephen. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  48. Levinson, Stephen. C. 1987. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s participation framework. In Paul Drew & Andrew Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the Interaction Order, 161-227. Oxford: Polity Press.
  49. McEnery, Tony & Andrew Hardie. 2011. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. McFarlane, Steven, Heather Cipolletti Perez & Christine Weissglass. 2020. Thinking in a non-native language: A new nudge? Frontiers in Psychology 11. 549083.
  51. Miozzo, Michele, Eduardo Navarrete, Martino Ongis, Enrica Mello, Vittorio Girotto & Francesca Peressotti. 2020. Foreign language effect in decision-making: How foreign is it? Cognition 199. 104245.
  52. Müller, Cornelia. 2008. Metaphors Dead and Alive, Sleeping and Waking: A Dynamic View. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  53. Musolff, Andreas. 2000. Political imagery of Europe: A house without exit doors? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 21 (3). 216-229.
  54. Musolff, Andreas. 2016. Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and Scenarios. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
  55. Musolff, Andreas. 2019. Creativity in Metaphor Interpretation. Russian Journal of Linguistics 23 (1). 23-39. https://doi.org/10.22363/2312-9182-2019-23-1-23-39
  56. Musolff, Andreas. 2022. “World-beating” pandemic responses: Ironical, sarcastic, and satirical use of war and competition metaphors in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. Metaphor and Symbol 37 (2). 76-87. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2021.1932505
  57. Paradis, Cartia. 2004. Where does metonymy stop? Senses, facets, and active zones. Metaphor and Symbol 19 (4). 245-264.
  58. Popa-Wyatt, Mihaela. 2020. Hyperbolic figures. In Angeliki Athanasiadou & Herbert Colston (ed.), The diversity of irony, 91-106. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.
  59. Reagle, Joseph Michael. 2015. Reading the Comments: Likers, Haters, and Manipulators at the Bottom of the Web. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  60. Sampson, Geoffrey. 2013. One man’s norm is another’s metaphor: Patrick Hanks: Lexical analysis. Norms and exploitations. Language and Dialogue 3 (3). 437-456.
  61. Schäffner, Christina. 2004. Metaphor and translation: Some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 1253-1269.
  62. Sönning, Lukas & Valentin Werner. 2021. The replication crisis, scientific revolutions, and linguistics. Linguistics 59 (5). 1179-1206.
  63. Segel, Edward & Lera Boroditsky. 2011. Grammar in art. Frontiers in Psychology 1. 244.
  64. Sperber, Dan (ed.). 2000. Metaprepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  65. Steen, Gerard. 2017. Deliberate Metaphor Theory: Basic assumptions, core tenets, remaining issues. Intercultural Communication. 14 (1). 1-24.
  66. Tannen, Deborah. 1986. This is Not What I Meant. How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks your Relations with Others. William Morrow & Company Inc.
  67. Thomas, Jenny. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4 (2). 91-112.
  68. Toivo, Taru Iris Wilhelmiina. 2020. Reduced emotional resonance in bilinguals’ L2: Potential causes, methods of measurement, and behavioural implications (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).
  69. van Dijk, Teun. 1984. Prejudice in Discourse: An Analysis of Ethnic Prejudice in Cognition and Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benhamins.
  70. van Dijk, Teun 1992. Denying racism: Elite discourse and racism. Discourse and Society 3 (1). 87-118.
  71. van Dijk, Teun. 2014. Discourse and Knowledge: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  72. van Dijk, Teun. 2021. Antiracist Discourse: Theory and History of a Macromovement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  73. Venuti, Lawrence. 2017. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge
  74. Wegner, Daniel M., David J. Schneider, Samuel R. Carter & Teri L. White. 1987. Paradoxical effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 (1). 5-13.
  75. Weigand, Edda. 2021. Dialogue: The complex whole. Language and Dialogue 11 (3). 457-486.
  76. Weigand, Edda. 2023. Principles of New Science: Dialogue between science and philosophy. Language and Dialogue 13 (1). 26-50.
  77. Weigand, Edda & Istvan Kecskés (eds). 2018. From Pragmatics to Dialogue. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  78. Weizman, Elda & Anita Fetzer (eds.). 2015. Follow-ups in Political Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  79. Wong, Galston & Bee Chin Ng. 2018. Moral judgement in early bilinguals: Language dominance influences responses to moral dilemmas. Frontiers in Psychology 9. 1070.
  80. Yus, Francisco. 2012. Relevance, humour and translation. In Ewa Waƚaszewska & Agnieszka Piskorska (eds.), Relevance theory: More than understanding, 117-145. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
  81. Poole, Steven. 2020a, April 16. ‘Frontline’: is it misleading to apply military metaphors to medicine? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/16/frontline-is-it-misleading-to-apply-military-metaphors-to-medicine (accessed 17 April 2020)
  82. Poole, Steven. 2020b, August 15. From ‘alert’ to ‘zoom’: Steven Poole’s lexicon of lockdown. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/15/from-alert-to-zoom-steven-pooles-lexicon-of-lockdown (accessed 20 March 2019)
  83. Ray, Saptarshi. 2014, April 16. Found in translation ... when misquoting someone is the best way to be fair and accurate. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2014/apr/16/mind-your-language-quote-unquote, (accessed 30 April 2020)
  84. Simons, Margret. 2015. What’s with all the war metaphors? We have wars when politics fails. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/17/whats-with-all-the-war-metaphors-we-have-wars-when-politics-fails (accessed 10 March 2023)

版权所有 © Abdel-Raheem A., 2024

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名-非商业性使用 4.0国际许可协议的许可。

##common.cookie##