James J. Sosnoski the Society for Conceptual Logistics Emeritus Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago SCLCR 2015 Copyright by James J. Sosnoski, 2015 Copyright 2015, James J. Sosnoski – President, Society for Conceptual Logistics in Communication Research (sclcr.com) 1 for Sweet P Copyright 2015, James J. Sosnoski – President, Society for Conceptual Logistics in Communication Research (sclcr.com) 2 CONTENTS Preface 1. Introduction to Reading and Analyzing Discourses 2. Units of Analysis in LDA 3. The Premises Specific to LDA 4. The Reader's Situation 5. A Model of Reading 6. A Model of the Analyst __________ 7. Analyzing News Framing 8. Analyzing Conceptual Change in Research Publications 9. Analyzing Cultural Configurations 10. Evaluating Texts __________ 11. Concluding Remarks Appendix: A Cognitive/Functional Model of a Situated Communication Event copyright: jjs Copyright 2015, James J. Sosnoski – President, Society for Conceptual Logistics in Communication Research (sclcr.com) 3 Chapter 1 Introduction to Reading and Analyzing Discourses ABSTRACT: Discourse analysts are necessarily readers of the texts they analyze and their analyses are, in effect, readings of the texts. Christopher Hart, for example, offers a reading of the British National Party’s 2005 manifesto. He argues that conceptual blending theory adds a significant dimension to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Tuen van Dijk characterizes CDA as studies of the concepts of power, dominance, and social inequality. Logistical Discourse Analysis (LDA) similarly uses conceptual blending theory and studies conceptions. However, LDA differs in its objective. LDA analyzes the relations between reading (conceptualization) and the analysis of concepts in research publications. Conceptions are not commonly understood as discursive structures, especially not as inter-discursive structures. Nor are they commonly understood as the outcome of conceptualization involving conceptual blending. I focus on conceptions as discursive structures that guide readers into constructing texts in very specific ways. Copyright 2015, James J. Sosnoski – President, Society for Conceptual Logistics in Communication Research (sclcr.com) 4 CONTENTS: 1.0 Analysts are Readers 1.0.1 A Discourse Analysis is a Reading of Text 1.2 Basic Relations in the Analysis of Conceptions 1.2.1 Concepts 1.2.2 Conceptions and Concepts 1.2.3 Conceptions and Conceptualization 1.2.4 Conceptions as an Object of Analysis in LDA 1.2.5 Conceptions as Protologs and Analogs 1.2.6 Conceptions and their Boundaries 1.2.7 Conceptions as Mental Spaces 1.2.8 Conceptions and Conceptual Blending 1.2.9 Conceptions and Conceptual Logistics 1.3 Concluding Remarks 1.0 Analysts are Readers It would be difficult if not impossible to do a discourse analysis of a text without reading it. Moreover, discourse analysis, in particular, critical discourse analysis, results in readings of texts. As Teun Van Dijk notes in his “Critical Discourse Analysis” (CDA): … most kinds of CDA will ask question about the way specific discourse structures are deployed in the reproduction of social dominance, whether they are part of a conversation or a news report or other genres and contexts. (2001, pp. 353-354) Discourse structures are “deployed” so that the persons reading them will interpret them in particular ways. 1.0.1 A Discourse Analysis is a Reading of Text In his “Critical Discourse Analysis and Conceptualization: Mental Spaces, Blended Spaces and Discourse Spaces in the British National Party (2007),” Christopher Hart offers readings of various passages from the 2005 general election manifesto of the British National Party (BNP) entitled Immigration: A Crisis without Parallel: If Tony Blair can say that it is 'neither racist nor extremist' to raise 'genuine concerns' about the flood of asylum seekers, then it is no longer feasible to pretend the crisis doesn't exist. (2007, p. 112) Copyright 2015, James J. Sosnoski – President, Society for Conceptual Logistics in Communication Research (sclcr.com) 5 Hart then proceeds to show how a conceptual “blending network” is constructed based on Fauconnier and Turner’s model of conceptual blending (2002, pp. 39-57): … prompted by "flood" and "asylum seekers", two mental spaces are constructed which enter into a conceptual integration network. Emergent structure arises in the blended space in which the two counter-part elements in each input space are fused through composition. The blending process, then, produces emergent structure in which the migration of people is conceptualised as a flood of water (a topoi of danger). … The conceptualisation of an ongoing "flood of asylum seekers" immediately warrants the implementation of restrictive immigration policy in order to "stem the flood". In this reading of the 2nd paragraph of the BNP manifesto, Hart argues that using “flood” as a metaphor for “immigration” and using “asylum seekers” as a metaphor for the immigrants is a discourse structure that leads the reader to agree with the idea of implementing a “restrictive immigration policy in order to ‘stem the flood’” of persons of other races into Britain. The basic argument of Hart’s article is that Conceptual Blending Theory “accounts for some of the conceptual operations performed during discourse” and is of “particular significance in CDA” because ideology involves “forming a coherent view of reality” that privileges one class over another. He notes that cognitive linguistics “provides tools with which CDA can specifically attend to conceptualization” as it is embedded in discourses (2007, pp. 108-109). I agree with Hart’s view of the relation between conceptualization and discourse. In this study I analyze the relations between reading (as a process of conceptualization and re-conceptualization) and conceptions in research discourses. 1.2 Basic Relations in the Analysis of Conceptions Logistical Discourse Analysis is based on a theory of reading as a process of conceptualization and re- conceptualization. However, its objective is not to analyze complete readings of a text as is the case in literary criticism but to analyze readings of discursive structures in texts, in particular, research conceptions. Tuen van Dijk observes that critical discourse analysts focus on conceptions such as “power,” “dominance,” “hegemony,” “ideology,” “class,” “gender,” “race,” “discrimination,” “interests,” “reproduction,” “institutions,” “social structure,” and “social order” (2001, p. 354). In a manner that parallels CDA, I analyze research conceptions in Communication Studies. My focus is on conceptions as discursive structures embedded in research discourses. In addition to Hart’s use of cognitive linguistics, in particular, conceptual blending theory, I have developed a theory of reading based on conceptual logistics (CL), the study of the “routing” of conceptions as they are used in research discourses.1 To 1 The theory of discursive logistics is based on the works of Charles Fillmore (2006), Eleanor Rosch (1978), Michael Halliday (1978; 2002, 2009b; 1976; 1993; 2004; 1989), Ronald Langacker (1972, 1999, 2002a, 2002b, 2008), George Lakoff (1987; 1980; 1989), Charles Johnson (1980; 1999), Giles Fauconnier (1974, 1985, 1997; 1996; 2002), Giles Fauconnier & Mark Turner (2002; Copyright 2015, James J. Sosnoski – President, Society for Conceptual Logistics in Communication Research (sclcr.com) 6 distinguish my form of discourse analysis from CPA, I refer to it as logistical discourse analysis (LDA). It tracks the “logogenesis” (the unfolding of meaning) in texts. It shows the ways in which discursive structures such as conceptions instruct readers how to construct the meaning of texts. Conceptions are not commonly understood as discursive structures, especially not as inter-discursive structures. Nor are they commonly understood as the outcome of conceptualization, Hart being an exception. LDA is designed to analyze textual units, in effect, segments of texts, namely conceptions. The analysis of conceptions such as “power,” “dominance,” etc. is of obvious importance in critical discourse. The analysis of research conceptions such as “framing,” “agenda setting,” etc. is of importance in understanding the conceptual changes that constitute the collective use and evolution of scientific inquiry. Though I begin with the smallest discursive unit, the concept, my intention in what follows is to delineate the discursive outcome of conceptualization—conceptions and their conceptual development or logogenesis. I focus on several key relationships: words and concepts, conceptions and concepts, conceptions and conceptualization, conceptions as an object of analysis in LDA, conceptions as protologs and analogs, conceptions and their boundaries, conceptions and mental spaces, conceptions and conceptual blending, conceptions and conceptual logistics. 1.2.1 Concepts and Words For Gilles Fauconnier "Language does not carry meaning, it guides it" (Fauconnier, 1994, p. xxii). He quotes Mark Turner's Reading Minds for a succinct account of this premise: Expressions do not mean; they are prompts for us to construct meanings by working with processes we already know. In no sense is the meaning of [an] ... utterance "right there in the words." When we understand an utterance, we in no sense are understanding "just what the words say"; the words themselves say nothing independent of the richly detailed knowledge and powerful cognitive processes we bring to bear. (Turner, 1991, p. 206) Words, as expressions in a text, become concepts