This study adopts a pragma-cognitive approach to referential ambiguity as found in car advertisements. Drawing on Blending Theory (BT) and Relevance Theory (RT), we establish a pragma-cognitive analytical framework for utterance interpretation in communicative context. Within the framework, we depict the procedure of advertisement interpretation as follows: first, the audience of the advertisements construct two input spaces, namely “car” space and “person/car-owner” space, based on the ostensive stimulus (i.e. the language of the advertisements), the immediate context, and related cognitive models stored in long-term memory; then, they will map the content in the input spaces onto the blended space, namely “person-car” space; as a result, they finally acquire a set of weak implicatures and poetic effects intended by the advertisers to help to achieve their communicative goal, that is, to persuade the audience to buy a particular brand of car. We also find that car advertisers choose to emphasize different features depending on the car type, and the identity and need of the potential customers in order to achieve different poetic effects. The study indicates the explanatory power of the pragma-cognitive framework we build for the interpretation of utterances in context and supports the adequate operability and compatibility of integrating RT and BT.
SHEN Xingchen, CHEN Xinren
. A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach to Referential Ambiguity in Advertisements: A Case Study of Car Ads[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2015
, 15(09)
: 33
-38
.
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2015.09.006
Brown, G. & G. Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. 1977. Language and Responsibility [M]. New York: Pantheon.
Coulson, S. 2001. Semantic Leaps: Frame Shifting and Conceptual Blending in Meaning Construction [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, W. & D. A. Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Evans, V. & M. Green. 2014. 认知语言学导论 [M]. 北京:世界图书出版公司北京公司。
Fauconnier, G. 1994/1985. Mental Spaces [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fauconnier, G. & M. Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities [M]. New York: Basic Books.
Forceville, C. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising [M]. London / New York: Routledge.
Forceville, C. & E. Urios-Aparisi. 2009. Multimodal Metaphor [C]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gardner, R. & S. Luchtenberg. 2000. Reference, image, text in German and Australian advertising posters [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1807-21.
Gibbs, R. & M. Tendahl. 2011. Coupling of metaphoric cognition and communication: A reply to Deirdre Wilson [J]. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (4): 601-9.
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & E. Sweetser. 1994. Foreword [A]. In G. Fauconnier (ed.). Mental Spaces [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ⅸ-xvi.
Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors [A]. In R. Gibbs (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought [C]. New York: Cambridge University Press. 84-105.
Stockwell, P. J. 1994. How to create universes with words: Referentiality and science fictionality [J]. Journal of Literary Semantics 23 (3): 159-87.
Tea, A. & B. Lee. 2004. Reference and blending in a computer role-playing game [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1609-33.
Tendahl, M. 2009. A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor: Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Tendahl, M. & R. Gibbs. 2008. Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (11): 1823-64.
Ungerer, F. & H. -J. Schmid. 2007. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
van Mulken, M., R.van Enschot-van Dijk & H. Hoeken. 2005. Puns, relevance and appreciation in advertisements [J]. Journal of Pragmatics 37(5): 707-21.
Wilson, D. 2010. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics [J]. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 22: 41-55.
Wilson, D. 2011. Parallels and differences in the treatment of metaphor in relevance theory and cognitive linguistics [J]. Intercultural Pragmatics 8 (2): 177-96.
Wilson, D. & D. Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory [A]. In L. Horn & G. Ward (eds.). The Handbook of Pragmatics [C]. Oxford: Blackwell. 607-32.
柏桦.2007.英汉广告语篇中人称指代的语用功能[J].修辞学习(1):41-42+46.
才亚楠.2014.从多模态隐喻视角看文化认知模式与隐喻关系解读[J].外语学刊(4):48-51.
陈新仁.1998.论广告用语中的语用预设[J].外国语(5):54-57.
陈新仁.2015.语言隐喻的来源与理解——Deirdre Wilson与Raymond Gibbs的对话评议[J].当代语言学(2):204-14.
冯德正、邢春燕.2011.空间隐喻与多模态意义建构——以汽车广告为例[J].外国语(3):56-61.
富饶.2007.广告转述语言的语用认知分析[J].外语学刊(4):73-76.
郝钦海.2000.广告语言中的跨文化语用失误——简析中译英广告语言[J].外语教学(3):26-32.
蓝纯、蔡颖.2013.电视广告中多模态隐喻的认知语言学研究——以海飞丝广告为例[J].外语研究(5):17-23.
罗胜杰.2010.广告仿拟的认知研究[J].外语学刊(1):52-56.
孙小春.2013.女性广告中的身份预设策略[A].陈新仁等.语用学视角下的身份与交际研究[C].北京:高等教育出版社.179-85.
田龙菊.2010.双关语的图形-背景阐释[J].外语学刊(1):45-47.
王雪玉.2012.广告劝说中的元话语资源和身份建构[J].天津外国语大学学报19(3):1-7.
王毓、王林海、刘秀云.2012.心理空间和概念整合理论在解决多模态场景中指称歧义方面的应用[J].外语电化教学(4):70-74.
韦汉.2001.会话合作原则与广告隐涵[J].外语与外语教学(6):35-37.
魏在江.2011.语用预设的构式研究——以汉语楼盘广告为例[J].外语学刊(3):19-23.
薛冰、李悦娥.2000.广告双关语的语用观和美学观[J].外语与外语教学(6):35-36+46.
姚俊.2004.广告双关语的认知研究[J].四川外国语学院学报(5):102-6.
姚振军.2013.“语用学的社会认知分析法”视角下的交际语境的事件域认知模型解读[J].外语与外语教学(1):10-13.
叶萍.2005.说理与煽情——以关联理论解读广告语篇[J].西南民族大学学报人文社科版(10):233-36.
曾立.2004.广告图文隐喻运作机制初探[J].外语与外语教学(6):11-14.
张辉、展伟伟.2011.广告语篇中多模态转喻与隐喻的动态构建[J].外语研究(1):16-23.
赵永峰.2013.认知社会语言学视域下的认知参照点与概念整合理论研究[J].外语与外语教学(1):5-9.
