Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 87–109

Silent abstractions versus “Look at me” drawings

Corpus evidence that artworks’ subject matter affects their fictive speech

| University of Queensland, Australia

Artworks can be said to metaphorically “speak” to their viewers (Sullivan 2006, 2009) in a form of fictive interaction (Pascual 2002). The current study examines the fictive speech of different types of artworks in a corpus of 1,105 examples extracted from DeviantART, the world’s largest online artwork community. In the corpus, abstract artworks are less often presented as “speaking” directly than figurative artworks. That is, a figurative painting might say, “Look at me!” in directly presented speech, whereas an abstract work is more likely to scream for attention without any direct speech attributed to the artwork. I suggest three reasons for this disparity. I also find that artworks depicting named characters participate in fictive conversations not shared by other works.

Keywords: corpus linguistics, fictive interaction, indirect speech, metaphor, visual art
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.05sul
References
Baynham, M
(1996) Direct speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse? Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 61–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, F
(2010) Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E
(1981) Footing. In Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hirose, Y
(1995) Direct and indirect speech as quotations of public and private expression. Lingua, 95, 223–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
(2008) Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 79–107). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salah, A.A., Salah, A.A., Buter, B., Dijkshoorn, N., Modolo, D., Nguyen, Q., van Noort, S., & van de Poel, B
(2012) DeviantART in spotlight: A network of artists. Leonardo, 45(5), 486–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salah, A.A., & Salah, A.A
(2013) Flow of innovation in deviantArt: Following artists on an online social network site. Mind & Society, 12, 137–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K
(2006) How does art ‘speak’ and what does it ‘say’: Conceptual metaphor theory as a tool for understanding the artistic process. In D.E. Boyes & F.B. Cogan (Eds.), Thought tools for a new generation: Essays on thought, ideas, and the power of expression (pp. 81–89). Eugene, OR: Robert D. Clark Honors College.Google Scholar
(2009) The Languages of Art: How representational and abstract painters conceptualize their work in terms of language. Poetics Today, 30(3), 517–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D
(1986) Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narratives. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 311–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988) Hearing voices in conversation, fiction, and mixed genres. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 89–113). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
(1989) Talking voices. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

No author info given
2014. . In Fictive Interaction [Human Cognitive Processing, 47], DOI logo
Pascual, Esther & Emilia Królak
2018. The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16:2 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 09 january 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.