Constructing contexts, (re)defining immigrants: Mental models and social representations in immigration policy defense

Abstract

This article examines two different instances of policy defense as a means to show how a socio-cognitive approach to contexts can help develop a dialectical account of the relationship between societal processes and our communicative practices. Based on such analysis, I argue that comparative analyses within a socio-cognitive theory of context can offer new insights into how, first of all, mental models control the process of discourse production and interpretation in important ways, and second, how they are intrinsically related to ideologically based understandings of particular groups and/or situations. Such an approach allows us to account for and explain the potential effectiveness of the discursive moves that emerge from this co-constitutive relationship between contexts and communicative practices.

Two-layer reading positions in comments on online news discourse about China

“…Other mental models, situation models, account for the semantics of discourse and explain the ways in which readers understand ‘the events texts are about ’ (van Dijk, 2008: 58, italics in original). In line with the context models, scholars explore the practices of multidisciplinary discourse analysis in news translation (Chen, 2011), policy defense speech (Guillem, 2013), parliamentary debate (Cuenca, 2014), political discourse and communication (Ghachem, 2015; Kupolati and Boluwaduro, 2018; Trimithiotis, 2018). Little empirical research is related to the process of discourse comprehension and production in the field of news understanding.…”

Mental models in discourse production Atypical discourse and the role of event models in the narratives of depressed patients

“…For the most part, his theoretical contributions are extensive but often lack microlinguistic support. However, his focus on the reproduction of attitudes and ideologies (1982; 1990; 1995a; 1995b; 2006b), especially his critical analyses of racism (1987a; 1989a; 1989b; 1992a; 1993a; 1993c), has prompted further research (Oktar, 2001;Koller, 2005;Chen, 2011;Guillem, 2013).…”