Irreality and counterfactual thinking in the semiotics of cinema: A cognitive-psychological aspect
- Authors: Druzhinin A.S.1
-
Affiliations:
- MGIMO University
- Issue: No 3 (2024)
- Pages: 58-90
- Section: ARTICLES
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2312-7899/article/view/270019
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.23951/2312-7899-2024-3-58-90
- ID: 270019
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Modern literature and cinema increasingly draw on possible world semantics to tell stories about alternative realities, parallel universes and counterfactual events. Imagining the world from a plurality of perspectives, envisaging several life scenarios for one and the same developing story, undoing the past and rewriting history are only a few interesting ways in which our alternative (counterfactual) thought can flow as we engage in the changing and unpredictable experiences our environment affords. In this research, I view irreality as a linguistic product of counterfactual thinking analyzable on the level of both text and cinematic observation. Given that irreal semantics has been mostly investigated so far in terms of logic and information processing, I aim to explore the bodily experience in which our imagination of what could (not) be is grounded. With such a focus on the empirical and psychological aspects of irreality construction in thought and action, I turn to films and filmmaking techniques observable on screen as enactments of irreal meaning and irreal description of the world. In doing so, I analyze the features of polymodal construction of irreality in cinematic discourse. Using four feature films as research material – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Atonement, Sliding Doors, and Desperate Housewives – I investigate the dynamics of attention, bodily movements, perception and intellectual operations that are enacted on screen through the audio-visual semiotics to enable coherent alternative thinking and produce irreal descriptions of the situation. I argue a conclusion that in polymodal cinematic discourse, irreality “emerges” as a result of the subject’s operating with his/her past perceptual experience and re-configuring this experience in temporal terms in accordance with certain pragmatic goals and interests. In particular, I distinguish the following cognitive-psychological functions of irreality: undoing (canceling the lived experience), rescripting (rewriting, or re-evaluating and reconceptualizing, the lived experience), exploration of options (thinking of an experience in its alternatives), and scenario planning (acting on such experiential alternatives). I establish that imagining an alternative reality is not rejected by a film character as a perception-distorting fantasy but accepted instead as a useful cognitive and psychological tool that helps deal with uncertainty and solve various life problems. Through irreality, filmmakers manage to construct reversible time out of the characters’ non-linear flow of experience by enacting changes in their understanding of familiar events and objects of the surrounding world. A conclusion can be made that irreality and counterfactual thought in films are emplotted experiential configurations reproducible through the audio-visual semiotics of recorded video sequences.
About the authors
Andrey Sergeevich Druzhinin
MGIMO University
Email: andrey.druzhinin.89@mail.ru
Moscow, Russian Federation
References
- Бабушкин 2001 – Бабушкин А. П. Сослагательное наклонение как «окно» в иные миры // Вестник Воронежского государственного университета. Сер. Лингвистика и межкультурная коммуникация. 2001. № 1. С. 17–23.
- Дружинин, Лаврова 2024 – Дружинин А. С., Лаврова Н. А. Почему прошлое ирреально и что ирреального в прошлом: когнитивный аспект типологической взаимосвязи категорий ирреалиса и прошедшего времени глагола // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2024. № 1 (87). С. 23–54.
- Дружинин, Фомина 2022 – Дружинин А. С., Фомина Т. А. Эвфемизмы и дисфемизмы в конструировании опыта // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Филология. 2022. № 2 (76). С. 46–75.
- Левицкий 2017 – Левицкий А. Э. Реальное, квазиреальное и нереальное: проблемы вербализации средствами современного английского языка // Вестник Московского государственного лингвистического университета. Гуманитарные науки. 2017. № 7 (779). С. 72–84.
- Рингланд 2007 – Рингланд Дж. Сценарное планирование для разработки бизнес-стратегии. М.: Вильямс, 2007.
- Фомина, Дружинин 2023 – Фомина Т. А., Дружинин А. С. Контекстуально обусловленное номинативное варьирование на оси эвфемия / дисфемия // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Язык и литература. 2023. № 1 (20). С. 137–155.
- Arkes, Blumer 1985 – Arkes H. R., Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost // Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1985. Vol. 35 (1). P. 124–140.
- Bond 2004 – Bond M. Empirical studies of defense style // Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2004. Vol. 12. P. 263–278.
- Bubel 2008 – Bubel C. Film audiences as overhearers // Journal of Pragmatics. 2008. Vol. 40. P. 55–71.
- Centonze et. al. 2021 – Centonze A., Inchausti F., MacBeth A., Dimaggio G. Changing embodied dialogical patterns in metacognitive interpersonal therapy // Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 2021. Vol. 34 (2). P. 123–137.
- Costa 2020 – Costa R. M. Undoing (Defense Mechanism) // Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences / V. Zeigler-Hill, T. Shackelford (eds.). Springer International Publisher, 2020. P. 5668–5669.
- Cowley, Kuhle 2020 – Cowley S. J., Kuhle A. The rise of languaging // Biosystems. 2020. Vol. 198. Art. 104264.
- Dimaggio et al. 2018 – Dimaggio G., Popolo R., Ottavi P., Salvatore G. Metacognitive interpersonal therapy as a dialogical practice. Experiential work in session with personality disorders // Handbook of Dialogical Self Theory and Psychotherapy: Bridging Psychotherapeutic and Cultural Traditions / A. Konopka, H. J. M. Hermans, M. M. Gonçalves (eds.). London: Routledge, 2018. P. 21–32.
- Druzhinin 2022 – Druzhinin A. S. Cinematic observation in linguistics and beyond: Towards an empirical science // Praxema. 2022. Vol. 32. P. 9–29.
- Druzhinin, Fomina 2023 – Druzhinin A. S., Fomina T. A. The world of embodied dialogic creatures // Constructivist Foundations. 2023. Vol. 3 (18). P. 406–409.
- Dynel 2011 – Dynel M. “You talking to me?” the viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse // Journal of Pragmatics. 2011. Vol. 43. P. 1628–1644.
- Freud 1959 – Freud S. Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis // The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud / J. Strachey (ed.). London: The Hogarth Press, 1959. Vol. IX. P. 115–127.
- Gonçalves et. al. 2017 – Gonçalves M. M., Ribeiro A. P., Mendes I., Alves D., Silva J., Rosa C., Braga C. Three narrative-based coding systems: Innovative moments, ambivalence and ambivalence resolution // Psychotherapy Research. 2017. Vol. 3. P. 270–282.
- Hampton 2007 – Hampton Ch. Atonement. Screenplay. New York: Newmarket Press, 2007. URL: https://indiegroundfilms.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/atonement.pdf (accessed: 23.10.2022).
- Johnson 2017 – Johnson M. Embodied mind, meaning, and reason: How our bodies give rise to understanding. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 2017.
- Johnson, Goldstein 2003 – Johnson E. J., Goldstein D. Do defaults save lives? // Science. 2003. Vol. 302. P. 1338–1339.
- Kravchenko 2022 – Kravchenko A. V. The maturanian turn: Good prospects for the language sciences // Constructivist Foundations. 2022. Vol. 18 (1). P. 30–41.
- Roese 1997 – Roese N. J. Counterfactual thinking // Psychological Bulletin. 1997. Vol. 121 (1). P. 133–148.
- Roese, Olson 1995 – Roese N. J., Olson J. M. What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual thinking. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1995.
- Samuelson, Zeckhauser 1998 – Samuelson W., Zeckhauser R. Status quo bias in decision making // Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1988. Vol. 1. P. 7–59.
- Sarpong, Maclean 2011 – Sarpong D., Maclean M. Scenario thinking: A practice-based approach for the identification of opportunities for innovation // Futures. 2011. Vol. 43. P. 1154–1163.
Supplementary files

