A Comparative Study of McDonald’s Wedding Narratives with the Model of Anchoring

Mimi Huang

Abstract


Fast-food giant McDonald’s announced in 2010 that they would start hosting wedding ceremonies and receptions for couples who would like to get married in their restaurants in Hong Kong. This paper conducts a study comparing the differing representations of McDonald’s wedding services through a narrative analytical approach. Specifically, this paper examines relevant discourses surrounding the launch of the corporation’s wedding services from the British media (e.g. Daily Mail, the Independent) as well as public discourses in Hong Kong (e.g. McDonald’s Hong Kong website, and CNN’s Hong Kong news).  It is found that these narratives have a significant degree of discrepancy in depicting McDonald’s wedding stories. These differences further raise the question of how differing narrative strategies are employed to conceptualise the brand’s emergent wedding narratives in a unique social-cultural environment.  In the discussion of McDonald’s wedding stories, the focus is placed on the cognitive and linguistic aspects of the discourse. An analytical model of “anchoring” will be proposed and applied to investigate the cooperation’s marketing strategies as well as the media’s reaction towards such promotions. It is argued that a narrative can promote or demote a brand’s identity and position through the process of anchoring. It is further argued that anchoring is an important cognitive-psychological strategy in conceptualization and meaning construction.

Keywords: narrative inquiry, cognitive narratology, anchors, anchoring, meaning construction


Full Text:

PDF

References


Anonymous.(2010a). Mcdonald's to Make Wedding Cakes. The Independent. URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/mcdonalds-to-make-wedding-cakes-2105652.html?origin=internalSearch [01/06/2016]

Anonymous. (2010b). The Mcwedding: Couples Set to Tie Knot in Fast Food Chain Branches from January. Mail Online. URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320488/McDonalds-wedding-Couples-marry-fast-food-chain-HK-January.html [01/06/2016]

Anonymous. (2011a). Mcdonald's Wedding Party Services Make Public Debut. McDonald's Corporation. URL: http://mail.mcdonalds.com.hk/english/about/press/press.asp?id=110214 [01/06/2016]

Anonymous. (2011b). Will You Mcmarry Me? Couple Opt for Mcdonald's Engagement Party. CNN Go Hong Kong Essentials. URL: http://www.cnngo.com/hong-kong/life/mcengagement-party-valentines-day-033103 [01/06/2016]

Bloom P., & Cederstrom C. (2009). The Sky's the Limit: Fantasy in the Age of Market Rationality. Journal of Organizational Change Management 25(2), 159 - 180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810910947190

Boje D. M. (2008). Storytelling Organizations. Los Angeles, London: SAGE.

Clandinin D. J., & Huber J. (2010). Narrative Inquiry. In P. Peterson, E. Baker & B. McCGaw (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed.) (pp.436-441). New York: Elsevier Science.

Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cmbridge Univesity Press.

Dancygier B. (2007). Narrative Anchors and the Processes of Story Construction. Style 41(2), 133-152. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.41.2.133

Fairclough N. (2001). Language and Power (2nd ed.). Harlow, Eng, New York: Longman.

Glynn D., & Fischer K. (2010). Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

Groucutt J. (2006). The Life, Death and Resuscitation of Brands. Handbook of business strategy 7, 101-106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10775730610618693

Herman D. (2009). Cognitive Approaches to Narrative Analysis. In J. Vandaele, G. Brône (Eds)., Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps (pp.79-118). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Hutchins E. (2005). Material Anchors for Conceptual Blends. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1555-1577. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008

Jahn M. (2005). Cognitive Narratology. In D. Herman, M. Jahn, M. L. Ryan (Eds.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory (pp. 69-71). London: Routledge.

Keeble R. (2006). The Newspapers Handbook (4th ed.). London; New York: Routledge.

Langacker R., W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol.1:Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: University of Stanford Press.

Lightfoot C. & Daiute C. (Eds). (2004). Narrative Analysis: Studying the Development of Individuals in Society. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.

Ritzer G. (1998). The Mcdonaldization Thesis : Explorations and Extensions. London: Sage.

Ritzer G. (2010). Mcdonaldization: The Reader (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Ritzer G. (2011). The Mcdonaldization of Society, (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif; London: Pine Forge.

Ryan M. L. (2010). Narratology and Cognitive Science: A Problematic Relation. Style 44(4), 469-495. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/style.44.4.469

Scott M. (1997). PC Analysis of Key Words – and Key Key Words. System 25, 233-245. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00011-0

Scott M., & Tribble C. (2006). Textual Patterns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Slunecko T. & Hengl S. (2007). Language, Cognition Subjectivity: A Dynamic Constitution. In J. Valsiner, A. Rosa (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of Social-Cultural Psychology (pp. 44-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stubbs M. (1996). Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Cutlure. Oxford: Blackwell.

van Dijk T. A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Yolles M., Fink G. & Dauber D. (2011). Organisations as Emergent Normative Personalities: Part 1, the Concepts. Kybernetes 40(5), 635 - 669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03684921111142223


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




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

2010-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.