Advertising discourse as modelling and semiotic activity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.28925/2412-2491.2024.221Keywords:
discourse of advertising, modelling, semiotics, sign, multimodal advertising textAbstract
The article is aimed at analysing the basic concepts of semiotics and their application in multimodal advertising texts of consumer goods. The purpose of the article is to study advertising discourse as a modelling and semiotic activity in English-language advertising discourse, as well as to outline the main semiotic strategies and linguistic means in the formation of English-language advertising messages. The main objectives are to review the works of Ukrainian and foreign researchers on the issue, to identify and describe the key semiotic strategies and linguistic means of English-language advertising texts, and to determine the role of semiotic strategies in interaction with the audience and their reproduction of cultural concepts through advertising communication. The article provides a comprehensive overview of some of the key principles and concepts of semiotics and their advertising relevance, highlighting the construction of denotative messages about a product and desired connotative associations. The article also explains the role of adherence to known codes and the use of intertextual references in advertisements to create a connection with the audience. This article draws heavily on fundamental semiotic theories such as Peirce's triadic sign model, the distinction between denotation and connotation, the role of codes and cultural conventions, and the phenomenon of intertextuality. The article shows how advertisers use signs, symbols and related meanings to create culturally resonating persuasive campaigns. The relevance of the study is to understand how advertising shapes attitudes and stereotypes, as well as how modern technologies change the ways of interacting with the audience through linguistic and semiotic strategies.
Downloads
References
Bateman, J. A. (2008). Multimodality and Genre. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582323
Boiko, O. (2021). Modern English advertisements of toothpaste: Rhetoric perspective. Studia Philologica, 2(17), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.28925/2311-2425.2021.172
Gee, J. (2013). The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809068
Goldman, R., & Papson, S. (2000). Advertising in the age of accelerated meaning. У J. Schor & D. Holt (eds.), The consumer society reader (pp. 81–98). The New Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 3(2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003002004
Kolisnychenko, T. (2020). Advertising discourse: Notions, features and functions. Тrаnscarpathian Philological Studies, 2(13), 93–96. https://doi.org/10.32782/tps2663-4880/2020.13-2.18
Kress, G. (1990). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 11, 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190500001975
Ledin, P., & Machin, D. (2018). Doing Visual Analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Makiedonova, O. (2017). Linhvostylistychna orhanizatsiia ta prahmatychne funktsionuvannia anhliiskomovnoho reklamnoho dyskursu. Zaporizkyi natsionalnyi universytet. (in Ukrainian)
Marmuta, O., & Shynkarenko, I. (2017). Semiotyka v diialnosti patrulnoi politsii. Metafora ta yii semiotychnyi kontekst. (in Ukrainian)
Merriam-Webster: America's Most Trusted Dictionary. URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary (date of access: 25.01.2024).
Ohiienko, I. (2012). Dyskurs ta pidkhody do yoho analizu: Pohliady na problemu suchasnykh anhlomovnykh doslidnykiv. Naukovi zapysky. (in Ukrainian)
Oleksiuk, O. (2012). Leksyko-semantychni dominanty suhestyvnoho dyskursu reklamy. Odeskyi nats. universytet im. I. I. Mechnykova. (in Ukrainian)
Paliienko, A. M. (2013). Semiotychnyi analiz mediatekstu: teoretychni osnovy. Visnyk Chernihivskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu. (in Ukrainian)
Preston, D. R. (1994). Content-oriented discourse analysis and folk linguistics. Language Sciences, 16(2), 285–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(94)90004-3
Price, S. (1999). Critical Discourse Analysis: Discourse Acquisition and Discourse Practices. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 581. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587683
Rahman, S. S. (2002). Stakeholder Discourse and Critical-Frame Analysis. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2002(6), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.4700.2002.su.00010
Scheff, T. J. (2005). The Structure of Context: Deciphering Frame Analysis. Sociological Theory, 23(4), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0735-2751.2005.00259
Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy. Tlumachni slovnyky ukrainskoi movy. Vziato 25 sichnia 2024 z https://sum.in.ua (in Ukrainian)
Shepetiak, O. (2014). Klasyfikatsiia znakiv u semiotytsi Chalza Pirsa. Universytetska kafedra. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Ukaf_2014_3_13 (in Ukrainian)
Sunakawa, C. (2003). Discourse Analysis.:Discourse Analysis. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 13(2), 261–262. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2003.13.2.261
Van Dijk, T. A. (1994). Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 5(4), 435–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926594005004001
Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and Practice. New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford University Press.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 CC BY 4.0 DEED Attribution 4.0 International
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.