Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp.180–212

“Hi, Mr. President!”

Fictive interaction blends as a unifying rhetorical strategy in satire

| Polytechnic Institute of Viseu
| Zhejiang University
| Case Western Reserve University

What makes The Daily Show with Jon Stewart so successful as social and political satire? Rhetorical theorists and critics have identified several mechanisms for satisfying the show’s satiric and parodic aim, which include parodic polyglossia, contextual clash, and satirical specificity (Waisanen, 2009). We present a unified account of meaning construction that encompasses these three mechanisms within the framework of blended fictive interaction (Pascual, 2002, 2008a b). Satire results from emergent effects of different conceptual configurations that have to be in place to integrate a pastiche of speech whose provenance originates in different and diverse contexts and genres. The integration of contradictory, conceptually disjointed pieces of discourse under the governing structure of the conversation frame accounts for the show’s most conspicuous satirical moments. These imagined interactions highlight facets of the real world for critical commentary. The thick description of an influential Daily Show segment deepens our understanding of contemporary political satire.

Keywords: fictive interaction networks, late-night satirical political entertainment television shows, parodic polyglossia, satirical specificity, contextual clash
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Conceptual Blending Theory and fictive interaction
  • 3. The Daily Show: A satirical news program
  • 4.Data
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1‘Addressing’ a real contemporary language user in a present-past reality blend
    • 5.2‘Addressing’ a real contemporary language user in a present reality-fiction blend
    • 5.3‘Speaking’ for a real contemporary language user in a present reality-past counterfactual blend
    • 5.4‘Speaking’ for a real now-deceased language user in a counterfactual past-present reality-fiction blend
    • 5.5Quoting a real contemporary speaker, fictively addressing another real contemporary language user in a past-present reality-nursery rhyme-advertisement blend
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00056.fon
References
Amarasingam, A.
(Ed.) (2011) The Stewart/Colbert effect: Essays on the real impacts of fake news. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company Inc.Google Scholar
Andersen, P.
(1999) Nonverbal communication: Forms and functions. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Pub Co.Google Scholar
Armstrong, J. K.
(2015, August 6). How Jon Stewart changed the world. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from [URL]
Baker, P.
(2012, October 17). For the President, punch, punch, another punch. New York Times. Retrieved from [URL]
Bakhtin, M.
(1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
(1986) Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baum, M. A.
(2002) Sex, lies, and war: How soft news brings foreign policy to the inattentive public. The American Political Science Review, 96(1), 91–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Soft news and political knowledge: Evidence of absence or absence of evidence? Political Communication, 201, 173–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Talking the vote: Why presidential candidates hit the talk show circuit. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 213–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baum, M. A., & Jamison, A. S.
(2006) The Oprah effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics, 68(4), 946–959. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, J., & Morris, J. S.
(2006) The Daily Show effect candidate evaluations, efficacy, and American youth. American Politics Research, 34(3), 341–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baym, G.
(2005) The Daily Show: Discursive integration and the reinvention of political journalism. Political Communication, 22(3), 259–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, A. B., Xenos, M. A., & Waisanen, D. J.
(2010) Sizing up The Daily Show: Audience perceptions of political comedy programming. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 18(3), 144–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, A.
(2012, October 4). What Google can tell us about the first debate – in 4 charts. The Washington Post. Retrieved from [URL]
Brandt, L.
(2008) A Semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 109–148). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L., & Pascual, E.
(2016) “Say hello to this ad”. The persuasive rhetoric of fictive interaction in marketing. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame. Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 303–322). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewer, P. R., & Marquardt, E.
(2007) Mock news and democracy: Analyzing The Daily Show. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 15(4), 249–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brône, G., Feyaerts, K., & Veale, T.
(2006) Introduction: Cognitive linguistic approaches to humor. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cao, X.
(2010) Hearing it from Jon Stewart: The impact of The Daily Show on public attentiveness to politics. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 26–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CBS Interactive
(2012, October 3). CBS news instant poll: Romney wins first presidential debate. CBS News. CBS. Retrieved from [URL]
Cienki, A., & Giansante, G.
(2014) Conversational framing in televised political discourse: A comparison from the 2008 elections in the United States and Italy. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(2), 255–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CNN Politics
(2012, October 3). CNN Poll: Most watchers say Romney debate winner. Retrieved from [URL]
Coulson, S.
(1996) The Menendez brothers’ virus: Analogical mapping in blended spaces. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language (pp. 67–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2001) What’s so funny?: Conceptual integration in humorous examples. Retrieved from [URL]
Coulson, S., & Pascual, E.
(2006) For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 41, 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., Urbach, T. P., & Kutas, M.
(2006) Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 19(3), 229–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CPD
(2012) 2012 Debates. Retrieved May 28, 2018, from [URL]
D’Addario, D.
(2015) Jon Stewart helped launch the careers of these Daily Show correspondents. Time Magazine. Retrieved from [URL]
Davis, C. J., Bowers, J. S., & Memon, A.
(2011) Social influence in televised election debates: A potential distortion of democracy. PLoS One, 6(3), e18154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Džanić, N., & Berberoviü, S.
(2010) On politicians in big women’s sunglasses driving buses with their feet in mouths: Late-night political humour and conceptual integration theory. Jezikoslovlje, 11(2), 197–214.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G.
([1985] 1994) Mental Spaces: aspects of meaning construction in natural languages. (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1997) Mappings in thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
(1994) Conceptual projection and middle spaces (Technical Report No. 9401). UCSD Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
(1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Feldman, L.
(2013) Learning about politics from The Daily Show: The role of viewer orientation and processing motivations. Mass Communication and Society, 16(4), 586–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) Assumptions about science in satirical news and late-night comedy. In K. H. Jamieson, D. Kahan & D. A. Scheufele (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 321–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
(1982) Frame Semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: International conference on linguistics: Selected papers. Seoul Korea: Hanshin Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, S.
(2015, July 30). Jon Stewart, superboss. Harvard Business Reveiw. Retrieved from [URL]
(2016) Superbosses: How exceptional leaders master the flow of talent. New York: Portfolio/Penguin.Google Scholar
Fonseca, P.
(2016) Fictive interaction blended networks in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Conceptualizing political humor discourse not only for entertainment purposes. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). University of Salamanca, Spain.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1963) Behaviour in public places: Notes on the social organisation of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
(1981) Footing. In Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodnow, T.
(2011) The Daily Show and rhetoric. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Gray, J., Jones, J. P., & Thompson, E.
(2009) The state of satire, the satire of state. In J. Gray, J. P. Jones, & E. Thompson (Eds.), Satire TV politics and comedy in the post-network era. New York & London: New York University.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G.
(1984) Transcription notation. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social interaction (pp. ix–xvi). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, J.
(2007) ‘Fake’ news versus ‘real’ news as sources of political information: The Daily Show and postmodern political reality. In K. Riegert (Ed.), Politicotainment: Television’s take on the real (pp. 129–149). New York: Peter Lang AG.Google Scholar
(2010) Entertaining politics satiric television and political engagement (2nd ed.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Knappenberger, B.
(2014, June 3). Bloomberg news. Jon Stewart’s story: How the fake newsman won over America. Bloomberg. Retrieved from [URL]
Kraus, S.
(2000) Televised presidential debates and public policy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lichter, S. R.
(Ed.) (2008) The comedy campaign: The role of late-night TV shows in campaign ’08. Media Monitor, XXII(3), 1–7.Google Scholar
Liddell, S.
(1995) Real, surrogate and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. In K. Emmorey & J. Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture and space (pp. 19–41). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
(2003) Grammar, gesture, and meaning in American sign language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín-Arrese, J.
(2003) Humour as ideological struggle: The view from Cognitive Linguistics. Presented at the Cognitive Linguistics Approaches to Humour, University of La Rioja, Spain. Retrieved from [URL]
(2008) Cognition and culture in political cartoons. Intercultural Pragmatics, 5(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T.
(2009) From attention to meaning: Explorations in semiotics, lingsuistics, and rhetoric. Bern: Peter Lang Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oakley, T., & Pascual, E.
(2017) Conceptual blending theory. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 423–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parrill, F.
(2012) Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 97–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E.
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008a) Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (p. 262). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008b) Text for context, trial for trialogue: A fieldwork study of a fictive interaction blend. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 50–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Popa, D. E.
(2011) Political satire dies last: A study on democracy, opinion formation, and political satire. In V. Tsakona & D. E. Popa (Eds.), Studies in political humour vol. 461 (pp. 137–166). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prior, M.
(2003) Any good news in soft news? The impact of soft news preference on political knowledge. Political Communication, 201, 149–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T., Sanders, J., & Sweetser, E.
(2009) Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In T. Sanders & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition (pp. 19–60). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L.
(2000) Fictive motion in language and “ception.” In Toward a cognitive semantics volume I: Concept structuring systems (pp. 99–175). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thussu, D. K.
(2007) New as entertainment: The rise of global infotainment. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
Turner, M.
(2010) Ten lectures on mind and language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
Waisanen, D. J.
(2009) A citizen’s guides to democracy inaction: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s comic rhetorical criticism. Southern Communication Journal, 74(2), 119–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warner, J.
(2007) Political culture jamming: The dissident humor of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Popular Communications, 5(1), 17–36.Google Scholar
Xenos, M. A., & Becker, A. B.
(2009) Moments of zen: Effects of The Daily Show on information seeking and political learning. Political Communication, 26(3), 317–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiang, M.
(2016) Real, imaginary or fictive? Philosophical dialogues in an early Daoist text and its pictorial version. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 63–86). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Young, D. G.
(2008) The Daily Show as the new journalism. In J. C. Baumgartner & J. S. Morris (Eds.), Laughing matters: Humor and American politics in the media age (pp. 242–259). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2013) Laughter, learning, or enlightenment? Viewing and avoidance motivations behind The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 57(2), 153–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zinoman, J.
(2014, April 16). True king of late night? He might raise eyebrows image. New York Times. Retrieved from [URL]