Cover not available

In:Style and Reader Response: Minds, media, methods
Edited by Alice Bell, Sam Browse, Alison Gibbons and David Peplow
[Linguistic Approaches to Literature 36] 2021
► pp. 61–80

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 4
Towards an empirical stylistics of critical reception

The oppositional reader in political discourse

 | Sheffield Hallam University
Published online: 8 February 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.36.04bro
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Text World Theory and critical reception
  • 3.Resisting “out loud”
  • 4.Resisting the writer (…and the other discourse participants)
  • 5. Resisting the text-world
  • 6.Conclusion: towards a stylistics of critical reception
  • References
References (54)
References
Apperly, I. A. 2012. What is ‘Theory of Mind’? Concepts, cognitive processes and individual differences. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65(5): 825–839. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bastani, A. 2018. <[URL]> (23 May 2019).
Booth, W. 1961. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Browse, S. 2016. Revisiting Text World Theory and extended metaphor: Embedding and foregrounding metaphor in the text-worlds of the 2008 financial crash. Language and Literature 25(1): 8–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018b. Reading political minds: “backstage” politics in audience reception. In ‘Doing Politics’: Discursivity, performativity and mediation in political discourse, M. Kranert & G. Horan (eds), 333–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018c. From functional to cognitive grammar in stylistic analysis of Golding’s The Inheritors . Journal of Literary Semantics 47(2): 121–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2019. “That’s just what we hear on telly all the time, isn’t it?” Political discourse and the cognitive linguistic ethnography of critical reception. In Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Text and Discourse: From Politics to Poetics, C. Hart (ed.), 157–180. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
forthcoming 2020. “Hmmm yes, but where’s the beef?”’ Cognitive Grammar and the active audience in political discourse. In New Directions in Cognitive Grammar and Style, C. Harrison, M. Giovanelli & L. Nuttall (eds). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brunsdon, C. & Morley, D. 1999. The Nationwide Television Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canning, P. 2017. Text World Theory and real world readers: From literature to life in a Belfast prison. Language and Literature 26(2): 172–187. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. (1982). Language and literature: an introductory reader in stylistics London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. & Stockwell, P. (2008). Stylistics: retrospect and prospect. In Carter, R. & Stockwell, P. (eds) The Language and Literature Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 291–302Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carruthers, P. & Smith, P. (eds). 1996. Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. 2014. Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse, and Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2013. Whatever next? Predicted brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 36(3): 181–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eckert, P. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4): 453–476. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1996. A reply to Henry Widdowson’s “discourse analysis: a critical view”. Language and Literature 5(1): 49–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. & Fairclough, I. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistics Society of Korea (eds), 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fiske, J. 1986. Television: polysemy and popularity. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 3(2): 391–408. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Forrest, L. 1996. Discourse goals and attentional processes in sentence production: the dynamic construal of events. In Conceptual Structure Discourse and Language, A. Goldberg (ed.), 149–161. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavins, J. 2007. Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Reading the Absurd. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gavins, J. & Lahey, E. (eds). 2016. World-Building: Discourse in the Mind. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, S. 1980. Encoding/Decoding. In Culture, Media, Language, S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe & P. Willis (eds), 117–127. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harrison, Chloe, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell & Wenjuan Yuan (eds). (2014). Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, C. (2016). Event frames affect blame assignment and perception of aggression in discourse on political protest: An experimental case study in Critical Discourse Analysis. Applied Linguistics, Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helm, T. & Savage, M. 2018. May bids for centre ground with appeal to Labour Voters. The Observer 7 October 2018, 1.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jeffries, L. 2010. Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
May, T. 2018. Labour voters should look afresh at the Conservatives. The Guardian [online] 6 October 2018. <[URL]> (22 May 2019).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Norledge, J. 2016. Reading the dystopian short story . Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield.
Nuttall, L. 2017. Online readers between the camps: A Text World Theory analysis of ethical positioning in We Need to Talk About Kevin . Language and Literature 26(2): 153–171. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peplow, D., Swann, J., Trimarco, P. & Whiteley, S. 2016. The Discourse of Reading Groups: Integrating Cognitive and Sociocultural Perspectives. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Premack, D. & Woodruff, G. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? Behavioural and Brain Sciences 1(4): 515–526. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Short, M. & van Peer, W. 1989. Accident! Stylisticians evaluate: Aims and methods in stylistic analysis. In Reading, Analysing and Teaching Literature, M. Short (ed.), 22–71. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication 23(3/4): 193–229. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simpson, P. 2004. Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2009. Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. 1997. What is political discourse analysis? In Political Linguistics, J. Blommaert & C. Bulcaen (eds), 11–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Werth, P. 1999. Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whiteley, S. 2011. Text World Theory, real readers, and emotional responses to Remains of the Day . Language and Literature 20(1): 23–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2016. Building resonant worlds: Experiencing the text-worlds of The Unconsoled . In World Building: Discourse in the Mind, J. Gavins & E. Lahey (eds), 165–182. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Whiteley, S. & Canning, P. (2017) Special issue: Stylistic approaches to reader response research. Language and Literature, 26(2) Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, R. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zarb-Cousin. 2018. <[URL]> (23 May 2019).
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Price, Hazel
2022. The year’s work in stylistics 2021. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 31:4 ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue