From DESCRIBING to INTERPRETING: On the Two Approaches for MTA—A Comparative Study of MTA with the Systemic functional Semiotic Approach or Cognitive Poetics

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.06.004

Abstract

Abstract: The systemic functional semiotic approach aims at DESCRIBING the interactive meaning and textual structure resulting from various modes integrated. It is the leading theory and approach for multimodal text analysis(MTA) at present. Cognitive poetics tries to INTERPRETE the textual effect caused by the textual structure. It used to serve literary texts. In fact it is also applicable to MTA. It may serve as a new theory and approach for MTA. This article makes a comparison between the systemic functional Semiotic Approach and cognitive poetics from their theoretical bases, analysis approaches, objectives, subjects,textual evidence and analysis patterns. The key difference between the systemic functional semiotic approach and cognitive poetics lies in the distinction of DESCRIBING and INTERPRETING. They are complimentary to MTA in a sense.

CLC Number:

H319

ZENG Fangben. From DESCRIBING to INTERPRETING: On the Two Approaches for MTA—A Comparative Study of MTA with the Systemic functional Semiotic Approach or Cognitive Poetics[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(06): 19-22.

References

Baldry, A. & P. J.Thibault. 2006. Multimodal Transcription and Text Analysis: A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook [M]. London: Equinox.
Bateman, J.A. 2008. Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents [M]. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Forceville, C. 2006. Non-verbal and multimodal metaphor in a cognitivist framework:Agendas for research[A]. In G. Kristiansen, M. Achard, R. Driven & F. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibanez(eds.). Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives [C]. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Forceville, C. 2008. Metaphorsin pictures and multimodal representations [A].In R.W.Gibbs,Jr(ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Forceville, C. & E. Urios-Aparisi. 2009. Multimodal Metaphor [M]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gavins, J. & G. Steen.(eds.). 2003. Cognitive Poetics in Practice[C]. London and New York: Routledge.
Gibbons, A. 2012. Multimodality,Cognition,and Experimental Literature [M]. London: Routledge.
Jewitt,C. 2009. Different approaches to multimodality [A]. In C.Jewitt(ed.). The Routledge Handbook to Multimodal Analysis [C]. London: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K & R. Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Kress, G & T. van Leeuwen.1996. Reading Images [M]. London: Routledge.
Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive Poetics [M]. London & New York: Routledge.
Verdonk, P. 2005. Painting,poetry, parallelism: Ekphrasis, stylistics and cognitive poetics [J].Language and Literature 14(3): 231-244.
Widdowson, H.G. 1992. Practical Stylistics [M].上海:上海外语教育出版社.
黄国文.1987.语篇分析概要 [M].长沙:湖南教育出版社.
李荣启. 2005.文学语言学 [M]. 北京:人民出版社.
Stockwell、马菊玲. 2012.文学认知研究的精妙科学 [J].外国语文(6): 2.
王佐良、丁往道.1987.英语文体学引论 [M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社.
熊沐清. 2012.“从解释到发现”的认知诗学分析方法 [J].外语教学与研究(3): 448-458.

[1]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	XU Ying, BI Yu, ZHANG Yaqing. A Review of Vocabulary and English for Specific Purposes Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 104-108.
[7]	GUO Hongjie, ZHANG Daqiu, DING Dong. An Integrated and Innovative Talents-fostering Model with Practices for FLL Discipline at Chinese Financial Universities in the New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[8]	PAN Haiying, LIU Shuling. Innovation and Development of College Foreign Languages Teaching in the Construction of New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[9]	MA Bingjun, CHANG Hui. Research on L2 Chinese Syntactic Processing: Theories and Empirical Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[10]	TAO Jifen. POA-based Reading and Speaking Approach to Oral English Teaching [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[11]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[12]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[13]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[14]	Lihe HUANG. Foreign Language Teaching and Research in the Post- pandemic Era: A Multimodal Paradigm [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.
[15]	Yongyan ZHENG. Multilingual Research in a Post-COVID Era: Reflection and Prospection [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.