Creativity Between the Illustrator and Non-Illustrator Writers in Applying Pragmatic Discourse to Narrative Pictures

Irfan Hamonangan Tarihoran, Sartika Sartika

Abstract


The present study examined creativity in shaping English-language children's stories through instructions to arrange random pictures into narratives. The objectives of this study were to identify, i.e. i) significant differences in creativity in applying pragmatic discourse to narrative pictures between illustrator and non illustrator writers; ii) how pragmatic discourse was applied to narrative pictures by both groups of writers; and iii) how narrative pictures were arranged. A total of 40 college students consisting of 20 illustrator writers and 20 non illustrator writers participated in this study. The present study employed a mixed-method sequential explanatory design. Quantitative data were obtained from creativity tests, specifically the element of fluency associated with pragmatic discourse by Blum Kulka. Quantitative data analysis employed non-parametric tests, specifically the Mann-Whitney U test. The quantitative analysis was supported by qualitative data from closed-ended questionnaires and interview results. The pragmatic approach through picDRT, in conjunction with Blum Kulka's pragmatic discourse, served to elucidate the problem. The findings indicated that implicature as a component of pragmatic discourse, exhibited substantial disparities between both groups of writers; with the illustrator writers demonstrating a higher degree of dominance compared to the non-illustrator writers. However, although not significantly different, the non-illustrator writers can be more dominant in terms of adaptation to context. Furthermore, the non-illustrator writers tend to prioritize narration and continuity-related coherence relations more than the illustrator writers. 

Keywords


Pragmatic Discourse; Illustrator; Creativity; Narrative Pictures; English Language

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abell, C. (2005). Pictorial implicature. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63(1), 55-66. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1559140.

Abusch, D., & Rooth, M. (2023). Parallel and Differential Contributions from Language and Image in the Discourse Representation of Picturebooks. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 27, pp. 1-18).

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Carvalho, J. B. (2002). Developing audience awareness in writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(3), 271-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00175.

Cohn, N. (2018). Visual Language Theory and the scientific study of comics. In J. Wildfeuer et al. (Eds.), Empirical Comics Research. Routledge.

Dijksterhuis, A., & Meurs, T. (2006). Where creativity resides: The generative power of unconscious thought. Consciousness and cognition, 15(1), 135-146.

Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive psychology, 40(4), 296-340.

Frixione, M., & Lombardi, A. (2015). Street signs and Ikea instruction sheets: Pragmatics and pictorial communication. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6, 133-149.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. Harvard University Press.

Güss, C. D., Tuason, M. T., Göltenboth, N., & Mironova, A. (2018). Creativity through the eyes of professional artists in Cuba, Germany, and Russia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(2), 261-289.

Hawkins, R. D., Sano, M., Goodman, N. D., & Fan, J. E. (2021). Visual resemblance and communicative context constrain the emergence of graphical conventions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13861. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2109.13861.

Hawkins, R. D., Sano, M., Goodman, N. D., & Fan, J. E. (2023). Visual resemblance and interaction history jointly constrain pictorial meaning. Nature Communications, 14(1), 2199. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37737-w.

Hollis, H. (2021). Readers’ experiences of fiction and nonfiction influencing critical thinking. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 55(1), 18-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211053040.

Hunter, J., & Abrusán, M. (2017). Integrating relational and intentional theories of discourse coherence. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.335.

Ishihara, N. (2013). Is it rude language? Children learning pragmatics through visual narrative. TESL Canada Journal, 135- 135.

Ives, S. T., Parsons, S. A., Parsons, A. W., Robertson, D. A., Daoud, N., Young, C., & Polk, L. (2020). Elementary Students’ Motivation to Read and Genre Preferences. Reading Psychology, 41(7), 660–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2020.1783143

Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. L. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffm018.

Kharkhurin, A. V. (2009). The role of bilingualism in creative performance on divergent thinking and invented alien creatures tests. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(1), 59-71.

Klomberg, B., Hacımusaoğlu, I., Lichtenberg, L. D., Schilperoord, J., & Cohn, N. (2023). Continuity, co-reference, and inference in visual sequencing. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.16995/glossa.9982.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. Routledge.

Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge.

Leech, Geoffrey N (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London & New York: Longman.

Maier, E., & Bimpikou, S. (2019). Shifting perspectives in pictorial narratives. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung, 23(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.18148/sub/2019.v23i2.600.

Mao, T., & He, S. (2021). An Integrated Approach to Pragmatic Competence: Its Framework and Properties.SAGE Open, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211011472.

Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2012). The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition, 122(3), 280-291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004.

Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Development, and Practice (2nd ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science.

Saeki, N., Fan, X., & Van Dusen, L. (2001). A comparative study of creative thinking of American and Japanese college students. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), 24-36.

Schlöder, J. J., & Altshuler, D. (2023). Super Pragmatics of (linguistic-) pictorial discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy, 46(4), 693-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-022-09374-x.

Sternberg, R.J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York: Plume.

Sukthanker, R., Poria, S., Cambria, E., & Thirunavukarasu, R. (2020). Anaphora and coreference resolution: A review. Information Fusion, 59, 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.01.010.

Torrance, E. P. (2018). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Interpretive manual. Retrieved October, 12, 2020.

Trimansyah, B (2020), Panduan Penulisan Buku Cerita Anak. Manual. Jakarta: Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa.

Weiland, L., Hulpuş, I., Ponzetto, S. P., Effelsberg, W., & Dietz, L. (2018). Knowledge-rich image gist understanding beyond literal meaning. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 117, 114-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2018.07.006.

Yoon, C. H. (2017). A validation study of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking with a sample of Korean elementary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26, 38-50.

Zhang, M., Hwa, R., & Kovashka, A. (2018). Equal but not the same: Understanding the implicit relationship between persuasive images and text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.08205. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1807.08205.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.25157/jall.v10i1.21384

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.