Rhetorical Devices as Multimodal Conceptual Blends in Brene Brown’s 99U Conference Talk (2013)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines the rhetorical devices used by Brené Brown in a 99U conference Talk (2013) in order to engage and persuade the audience that vulnerability is the seed of creativity and therefore, should be embraced as a stepping-stone to success. The study mainly explores the role conceptual blending theory plays in the exploitation of multimodal rhetorical devices, which include an inspirational quote, analogies and metaphors (both verbal and visual) and how they form a ‘mega-blend’ and a complex network of conceptual integration. The study also applies the conceptual blending model and the discursive process of framing in the analysis as crucial for the meaning construal of these multimodal rhetorical blends. The blending-framing analysis showed that these diverse rhetorical devices often require a complex multi-frame analysis and a larger mental space network of mappings to derive the intended message and achieve the intended rhetorical effect on the audience. The analysis also showed that the blending-framing model provided a unified theoretical framework that could examine the discursive function and multimodal representations of diverse rhetorical devices in edutainment events.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".