Address: office 1410a, 17 Naberezhnaya Severnoy Dviny, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation, Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Phone: (818-2) 28-76-18
E-mail: vestnik_gum@narfu.ru
http://gum.narfu.ru/en/

ABOUT JOURNAL

Linguocognitive Mechanisms of US Anthem Multimodality. P. 72–79

Версия для печати

Section: Philology

UDC

8122+81’26

DOI

10.17238/issn2227-6564.2019.3.72

Authors

Irina A. Yakoba
Irkutsk National Research Technical University; ul. Lermontova 83, Irkutsk, 664074, Russian Federation;
e-mail: irina_yakoba@mail.ru
Kseniya V. Kostina
Irkutsk National Research Technical University; ul. Lermontova 83, Irkutsk, 664074, Russian Federation;
e-mail: ksenia_kostina84@mail.ru

Abstract

The relevance of the study of discourse multimodality is explained by the rapid development of technical progress and the widespread use of multimodal elements in multiformat media discourse. Particular attention should be paid to the identification of the cognitive and axiological bases for the formation of multimodality mechanisms, as well as the degree of effectiveness of multimodal discourses and their practicability. This paper aimed to model the linguocognitive mechanisms of multimodal discourse in order to determine the degree of its effectiveness. The national anthem of the United States was chosen as an empirical material of the interaction of mechanisms in a multimodal representation (verbal, graphical, musical, auditory, and visual semiotic codes). As a result of the research, a model for managing the discourse of the subject area of the social sphere was designed, in which discourse is attractive to the addressee. The multimodal US anthem discourse is regulated through hard, soft, and smart powers, with the synergistic effect of different mechanisms in different semiotic codes. It was revealed that in the verbal presentation of the US anthem, mechanisms of positioning (opposition), imagineering (dramatization and hyperbolization), focusing, and pseudo-discussion are activated. In the visual code, the mechanisms of imagineering (deformation), positioning (unity), framing, and large scale are involved. In the audio code, the mechanism of imagineering (beautification) is found. Despite being regulated by hard power, the musical code has weak characteristics and low attractiveness. In the US anthem, a synergistic effect of various mechanisms is observed; their impact potential is enhanced, which contributes to the destinational nature of the semantic trajectory of discourse. Consequently, the US anthem can be recognized as an effective discourse for its addressee within the country when in a multimodal form. The revealed discourse powers, linguocognitive mechanisms and tools are part of the research in which the cognitive-communicative parameterization of media discourse is developed. In this study, we used the author’s terminology for cognitive-communicative modelling, deconstruction method, discourse analysis, critical analysis, linguoaxiological analysis, and interpretive analysis. The results obtained can make a certain contribution to the theory of language, pragmalinguistics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and communication theory.

Keywords

multimodality, multimodal discourse, hard power, soft power, smart power, linguocognitive mechanism
Download (pdf, 4.9MB )

References

1. Dem’yankov V.Z. Effektivnost’ argumentatsii kak rechevogo vozdeystviya [The Effectiveness of Argumentation as Means of Persuasion]. Problemy effektivnosti rechevoy kommunikatsii [Issues of Effectiveness of Speech Communication]. Moscow, 1989, pp. 13–40.
2. Ponomarenko E.V. Mezhnatsional’noe delovoe obshchenie: ubezhdenie ili manipulyatsiya [Interethnic Business Communication: Persuasion or Manipulation]. L.K. Raitskaya (ed.). Problemy effektivnosti delovogo obshcheniya na inostrannom yazyke [Issues of Effectiveness of Business Communication in a Foreign Language]. Moscow, 2011, pp. 60–64.
3. Yakoba I.A. Dekonstruktsiya gimna Rossii: vyyavlenie diskursivnykh sil vzaimodeystviya [Deconstruction of the Anthem of Russia: Identifying Discursive Forces of Interaction]. Diskurs-Pi, 2017, no. 2, pp. 174–180.
4. Barthes R. Izbrannye raboty. Semiotika. Poetika [Selected Works. Semiotics. Poetics]. Moscow, 1989. 615 p.
5. Prasolova E.V. Polikodovost’ kak zhanrovaya dominanta mul’timediynoy istorii v internet-SMI [Multimodality as a Genre Dominant of Multimedia Story in Online Media]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki, 2015, no. 12, pt. 4, pp. 171–174.
6. Saduov R.T. Lingvokul’turologicheskiy i semioticheskiy analiz osobennostey struktury i soderzhaniya politicheskogo diskursa Baraka Kh. Obamy [Linguocultural and Semiotic Analysis of the Structure and Content of Barack H. Obama’s Political Discourse: Diss.]. Ufa, 2011. 223 p.
7. Sonin A.G. Ponimanie polikodovykh tekstov: kognitivnyy aspekt [Understanding Multimodal Texts: A Cognitive Aspect]. Moscow, 2005. 220 p.
8. Sladkova V.S. Polikodovost’ teksta kak lingvovizual’nyy fenomen [Multimodality of Text as a Linguovisual Phenomenon]. Universitetskie chteniya [University Readings]. 2012, pt. 7. Available at: http://pglu.ru/editions/un_ reading/detail.php?SECTION_ID=2970&ELEMENT_ID=12570 (accessed: 21 September 2018).
9. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. Oxford, 2001. 142 p.
10. Yakoba I.A. Lingvokognitivnye parametry diskursa v tekhnologii “Umnaya nastroyka” [Linguocognitive Discourse Parameters in “Smart Tuning” Technology]. Irkutsk, 2017. 182 p.