The Construalization of Sequential Scenes in Dan %URZQ•V(cid:3) The Da Vinci Code: A Cognitive Semantic Study

One of the challenges that cognitive linguists face is how the parts of a scene are arranged and how sequential actions are joined together to form a wider scene. The order of actions in a scene is affected by how we see that scene, which is reflected in the language we use. The current study aims to develop a model of construalization to see how sequential scenes in Dan %URZQ•V(cid:3) The Da Vinci Code are viewed. A group of operations have been suggested under three umbrella terms: saliency, perspective and comparison. The proposed operations can base on either syntactic (such as grammatical saliency) or semantic properties (such as zooming). The study chose 28 actions in two broad scenes. The present study concluded that construalization plays an important role in the viewing arrangement of dynamic scenes. The place of entities in a scene affects our conceptualization of them; whenever the entity


Introduction
Cognitive linguistics (CL) is an approach to studying natural language in relation to cognition. It emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the work of several linguists who were not convinced of the traditional theories of the study of language. It investigates the relationship between human language, the mind and socio-physical experience. While its origins are philosophical in nature, CL has been strongly influenced by theories and findings from the other cognitive sciences, especially combining knowledge from both cognitive psychology and linguistics, and more recently by the brain sciences, the interdisciplinary field known as cognitive neuroscience (Evans et al., 2007, p. 2). What makes CL a distinct and worthwhile enterprise in the contemporary study of language is its interesting relationship between language, mind and sociophysical experience. CL, broadly speaking, aims to analyze the relationship between language and world experience. It can be defined as a powerful linguistic framework to study language, conceptual systems, human cognition, and general meaning construction. Within language, CL addresses the structuring of fundamental conceptual categories like space and time, scenes and events, entities and process, motion and location, force and causation (Fauconnier, 2003).
Cognitive linguists have used language as a means of studying aspects of conceptual organization and structure. The field related to the analysis of aspects of the mind, such as knowledge representation and meaning construction, employing language as a lens for doing so, is often known as cognitive semantics. Cognitive semantics have its root in the 1970s due to the objectivist approach, truth-conditional semantics, which emerged within formal linguistics, which views language independent of other mental processes. Evans (2007, p. 5) defines the term cognitive semantics as studying the relationship between experience, the conceptual system, and the semantic structure encoded by language. The cognitive semanticians aim to examine knowledge representation (conceptual structure) and meaning construction (conceptualization). As a result, research in cognitive semantics tends to be concerned with the human mind as much as it is interested in studying linguistic semantics. This means that cognitive semantics sees linguistic meaning as a manifestation of conceptual structure. As Talmy (2000 VDLG ´UHVHDUFK RQ FRJQLWLYH VHPDQWLFV LV UHVHDUFK RQ FRQFHSWXDO FRQWHQW DQG LWV RUJDQL]DWLRQ LQ ODQJXDJHµ Like CL, cognitive semantics represents an approach rather than a single theory. One of these theories that have a large space in cognitive semantics is construal operation.
The phenomenon of construalization plays a fundamental role in cognitive semantics. It has been studied by different cognitive linguists. The conceptualization of the dynamic scenes in our minds is a difficult challenge in cognitive linguistics. That is, they are like a video, consisting of a group of moving images that are linked by certain relations. An experienced novelist is a painter who has the ability to reflect reality using words. The difficulty lies in how they depict a scene in most detail, as if the reader sees it. The study deals with the construal operation of language to see how scenes are viewed to treat this problem.

Construal Operations
One of the fundamental properties of our mind is how we can conceptualize or construe the same series of actions in different ways. In CL, this is referred to as construal. Construing an entity or situation means interpreting or conceptualizing it in some way (Verhagen, 2007). It is "our manifest ability to conceive and portray the same situation in alternate ways" (Langacker, 2008, p. 43). This means that we can give multiple interpretations to the same situation. Consider the following two situations: a. The glass is half empty/ the half-empty glass.
b. The glass is half full/ the half-full glass.
Someone will probably say that the glass is half-full. Another may look at it differently and proclaim that it is half-empty. However, both are correct. The speaker of (a) looks at the empty part of the glass, neglecting the remainder of the water, whereas the speaker of (b) looks at the full part of the water. Therefore, both expressions describe the same situation from different perspectives (Radden and Dirven, 2007). This can be seen in Figure 1.  Talmy (1988, 2000), and William Croft and Alan Cruse (2004). Therefore, the following subsections shed light briefly on these different but overlapping versions of the construal operations. Langacker (1987, p. 116²37) differentiated between three classes of construal operations that he called 'focal adjustments': selection, perspective, and abstraction. Selection relates to the human being's ability to select some aspects of a scene to focus on and ignore others. Basic domains of the selected item include space, time, colour, pitch, temperature, pressure, pain, odour, emotion. Perspective describes the viewpoint from which a particular scene is viewed. It consists of four aspects: figure-ground alignment, viewpoint, deixis, subjectivity and objectivity. Finally, abstraction relates to the level of precision and detail at which a scene is described. Langacker (2008) revised his classification, consisting of four operations: specificity, focusing, perspective, dynamicity. Specificity corresponds to the previous category of abstraction, and perspective has remained the same. Focusing includes the aspect of selection and the phenomenon of figure-ground alignment (or foreground-background arrangement), which was categorized under the perspective operation in the previous classification. Prominence refers to the saliency of certain aspects of a scene in relation to others. The concepts of profiling and trajector-landmark alignment fall under the category of prominence a b Talmy (1988) differentiated between four classes of construal operation under the name of 'imaging systems': schematization,  perspective, attention, and force dynamics. There is a plausible overlap between 7DOP\·V DQG /DQJDFNHU·V FODVVLILFDWLRQ 7KDW LV WKH  FDWHJRULHV RI VFKHPDWL]DWLRQ SHUVSHFWLYH DQG DWWHQWLRQ FRUUHVSRQG WR /DQJDFNHU·V QRWLRQV RI VSHFLILFLW\ SHUVSHFWLYH DQG  SURPLQHQFH 7KH QHZ FDWHJRU\ LQ 7DOP\·V FODVVLILFDWLRQ LV IRUFH G\QDPLFV ZKLFK UHfers to the idea of how entities of a scene  physically interact with each other with respect to force. Talmy (2000, p. 40²84) also revised his classification, categorizing it into four major systems: configurational structure system, perspectival system, attentional system, and force dynamics system. The new classification is similar to the previous one with more detailed branches. The first category includes six patterns: plexity, boundedness, dividedness, degree of an extension, the pattern of distribution and axiality. The second category has several schematic categories, including location, distance, mode and direction. The third construal operation consists of three factors: strength, pattern and mapping. The final category differentiates between two factors: agonist and antagonist. There is a direct relationship between these construal operations and the viewing arrangement of a scene. They play a vital role in conceptualising the entities of a scene and the way they are arranged. Accordingly, these construal operations should be given full consideration.

The Model of Construalization
Since the schematic primitive structures are regarded as building blocks of any moveable scene, they play a vital role in structuring the conceptual system. Construalization, often known as a conceptual system, is relatively rich in detail. Both schematic and conceptual language systems work together and cannot be separated, configrating the picture of a scene. The former is metaphorically considered as the skeleton that is covered by the conceptual system. This means that unlike the schematic system, the conceptual system is variable. From this perspective, construalization is defined as conceptualising and interpreting the same situation in different ways (Langacker 2008).
Construalization takes a leading role in the conceptualization of the sequential scenes. It concerns which elements of a scene are highlighted over others (saliency); where we view a scene from (perspective); and how we can construe a scene in relation to another compared one (comparison). Depending on the three approaches to construalization (Langacker 1987, Talmy 2000, and Croft and Cruse, 2004), the study classifies construal operations into three: saliency, perspective, and judgement. These operations will be elaborately examined, and classified into various sub-categories with some minor simplifying modifications.

Saliency
One common dimension of construalization is saliency, also known as attention, focus or prominence. It concerns the distribution of attention over scenes and their entities. Attention is a fundamental phenomenon to human cognitive perception. Langacker (1987, p. 115) defines attention as "intrinsically associated with the intensity or energy level of cognitive processes, which translates experientially into greater prominence or salience". As such, saliency is the process of selecting the most highlighted properties of a scene and backgrounding others. Selection is the process of ignoring some aspects of a scene that are irrelevant to the purpose at hand and foregrounding the most prominent ones (Croft and Wood, 2000, p. 58). It is interesting to state that the construal operation of salience is somewhat comparable to relevance theory.
Four aspects fall under the domain of saliency. They are onstage vs offstage, figure-ground alignment, zooming and grammatical saliency. In the remainder of this section, the study will shed light on these aspects of attention.

Onstage Vs. Offstage
The notions of onstage and offstage refer to the idea that some parts of a scene can be visible to hearers or readers (onstage) or be suppressed and implicit, but it is not in the focus of attention. Consider the following scene: c. The man stepped up the top of the bridge and then climbed the fence and jumped to the ground by suicide.
The author and viewers of this scene do not pay much attention to other people, cars, the type of fence, or to other surrounding irrelevant parts, even though they are logically aware. However, the attention is focused on what is onstage, such as the man, the bridge, the fence, and the ground.
The distinction between onstage and offstage is described by Langacker (2008, p. 77) in terms of subjectivity and objectivity, which concern the relationship between the viewer and that which is viewed. For instance, when someone is watching a play, their attention is completely focused on what is onstage, more specifically on the actor presently speaking. Other irrelevant parts of the play are offstage. Although the other people in the audience are not in the focus of attention, they can also be profiled as part of a scene.

Figure-ground alignment
A further type of selection as a construal operation is figure-ground alignment which is derived from Gestalt psychology as one of the principles of perception. Later, this concept is applied in CL, in particular by Fillmore and Talmy. A figure is an entity that includes the prominent part of a scene due to its distinctive feature. On the other hand, ground refers to a part of a scene that has a less dominant shape (Evans, 2007, p. 79). For instance, printed black words are seen as the figure and the white sheet as the ground. Talmy (2000, p. 183) identifies a number of criteria for determining figure and ground. These are shown in Table 1.  Have known spatial properties More movable more stationary Smaller Larger Geometrically simpler Geometrically more complex More recently, in awareness Earlier on the scene/in memory Of greater concern/relevance Of lesser concern/relevance Less immediately perceivable More immediately perceivable More prominent More backgrounded More dependent More independent To be sure, humans tend to focus their attention on the moveable aspects of a scene. In other words, moveable participants involved in a sequential scene are more prominent than those who are somewhat stationary. Consider the following scene: d. The cat jumped on the tree.
In this scene, we give more attention to the cat rather than the tree. This is because our background knowledge tells us that the cat is more likely than the tree to move. Thus, the cat is considered as the figure and the remainder of the scene as the ground.
The scene would be odd if we change figure (the cat) to ground (the tree).
Furthermore, spatial representation in language plays a role in distinguishing between figure and ground. Evans and Green (2006, p. 69) refer to three parameters by which a spatial scene is configured: figure-ground segregation, the relative proximity of the figure with respect to the ground, and the position of the figure with respect to the ground.

Zooming
Zooming is the process of transfer from the outer periphery to the point of focus, i.e., narrowing of the scope, like a funnel. Langacker calls this fundamental part of the knowledge network the scope of a lexical concept. For instance, imagine if someone tells another one about the location of money in the kitchen, which consists of a counter, which has a cabinet underneath it, which includes shelves, and which consists of a meat grinder on the top shelf. This scene can be expressed as follow (Extracted from Croft and Cruse, 2004): e. The money is in the kitchen, under the counter, in the left-hand cabinet, on the top shelf, behind the meat grinder.
This scene makes reference to the scope of attention that has to do with a combination of spatial relations, designated by the prepositions in, under, on, and behind. Each locative expression profiles an object in the scope specified by the preceding locative expression. That is, we use the locative expression in the kitchen to narrow the scope to the meat grinder.
In scene (e), we start with the most distant scope of attention for the profiled object (i.e., the money), and then we narrow the scope, zooming it successively in the way that the profiled object can be found. In other words, the optimal lexical concept is the meat grinder which carries the most scope of attention and the kitchen, the most distant scope (Kovecses, 2006, p. 230).

Grammatical saliency
The grammatical organization is also fundamental to saliency. A phrase can grammatically take a particular position in order to become more prominent in the scene. One of the ways to study the distribution of attention from a grammatical perspective is what is traditionally called information packaging constructions (Quirk et al., 1985) or information structures. This structuring provides a wide range of formal options to express the same information content in different ways. It relates to the organization of new and old information in a scene to be fit with the hearer/reader's information. The study picks out two constructions to achieve this kind of prominence: Positioning and passivation.
Positioning is concerned with the linear organization of syntactic components. It can be divided into preposition and postposition. The former is the fronting of a grammatical element into the initial position, whereas postposition relates to the postposing of an item to the right of its basic position at the end of the sentence (Quirk et al., 1985(Quirk et al., , p. 1377(Quirk et al., , 1383. Consider the following scenes: f. Bill kicks the white ball.
g. The white ball Bill kicks.
The difference between (f) and (g) occurs in the entity that is fronded, and the one postponed. In (f), Bill holds the most focus of attention because he acts as the fronted agent. However, the white ball is the prominent entity in (g) since it is fronted, preceding the agent. In sum, the position of an element in the sentence determines its importance.
A further way in which the speaker/writer draws the hearer/reader's attention to a given entity is passivation. It concerns the subject-object shifting. In other words, it violates English word order (SVO). The scene producer has a number of grammatical choices about the verb forms. Among them is active and passive structure. The use of active construction denotes that the action actor is under our attention while using passive construction indicates that the object holds attention over the agent. That is, this diversity of grammatical structures is used to serve a specific purpose by giving more emphasis to a certain entity. Consider the following two scenes: h. George killed the dog.
i. The dog was killed by George.
The scenes (h) and (i) differ in the grammatical construction used to describe the scene. In the active construction, the focus is on the dynamic actor of the scene (i.e., Bill), while the dog in (i) is on the undergoer.

Perspective
A further operation of construalization is perspective which plays an important role in the relationship between language and cognition. It is the specific point from which a given entity or scene is viewed. 1 (Langacker, 2008, p. 73). In other words, different conceptualizers conceive the same scene by using different grammatical structures. This means that perspective depends on the spatial and temporal imagery conceptualised from a situation. However, perspective cannot only be realized through spatial situations. We can conceptualize the world based on other domains, such as knowledge and belief and our spatiotemporal location. Croft and Cruse (2004, p. 58-VWDWH WKDW SHUVSHFWLYH RU ZKDW WKH\ FDOOHG LW DV ¶VLWXDWHGQHVV JRHV EDFN WR +HLGHJJHU V QRWLRQ RI 'being-in-the-world', which refers to the idea that we are already in a situation and construing it from a specific perspective.
The construal operations relative to perspective contain three processes they are viewpoint, deixis, and subjectivity/objectivity. The following sub-sections are assigned to explain these processes.

Viewpoint
The term viewpoint is suggested by Langacker to refer to the conceptualization of the same scene in different ways. The viewpoint can be expressed through two types: vantage point and orientation, which give rise to foreground/background relations. The vantage point is the point of view from which a situation is conceptualized depending on a particular spatial or temporal position. Since the study is concerned with the analysis of moveable scenes, the focus will be on the construal vantage point of motion. It is obvious that the construal perspective changes whenever the mover moves.
The vantage point is illustrated with horizontally spatial prepositions such as in front of/behind or across. The choice between one of these prepositions depends on where the conceptualizer is located (Croft and Wood, 2000, p. 64). Verbs such as come inside and go outside can also be used to indicate this vantage point. Consider the following examples: j.
The car is in front of the tree.
k. The car is behind the tree.
Although these two sentences describe the same scene, the way of the depiction is different. Scene (j) is said by the observer who actually looks at the car that is stood between them and the tree. However, imagine if the observer goes to the other side of the tree, their viewpoint would be different, describing it as (k). Notice that there is no change in the places of cars and trees. The only change that happens is in the conceptualizer's vantage point. This can be diagrammed in Figure 2:  m. The city is below the plane.

Deixis
Deixis is one of the basic linguistic phenomena that deals with the connection of language with its spatiotemporal and personal context. It is traditionally distinguished into three types: time, place, and person deixis. Deixis plays a central role in the construalization of a scene. It concerns the positioning of participants in a scene. It is not only certain words (such as now/then, here/there, or I/you/ etc.) that can function as deictic expressions; tenses, however, can also function deictically (

The car is in front of the tree
The car is behind the tree The construalization of a scene does not only depend on who says something in a specific time or space. It also includes the conceptualizers' shared knowledge, or what is known as common or epistemic ground. Such common ground 2 provides us with an epistemic perspective situating the participants in a given scene (Croft and Wood, 2000, p. 64). The most common example of epistemic perspective is the use of definite and indefinite articles. Look at the following two scenes taken from Croft  They both refer to different construals of the situation. In (n), the hedgehog is construed as unknown to the hearer, whilst scene (o) is as part of their common ground.
In sum, perspectival construals result from our being in the world in a specific location. That is, we are in a given spatial position in the world (vantage point) and in a vertical orientation. As participants, we are located depending on particular spatiotemporal relations (deixis) or on our shared knowledge about the world (epistemic perspective).

Judgement and Comparison
Judgement is a philosophical concept suggested by Kant, who considered it as a basic cognitive faculty. Croft and Wood (2000, p. 64) link this concept to the process of comparison by which we can judge the similarity between two entities or situations. Judgement can be distinguished through three processes: framing, metaphor, and figure-ground relationships.

Framing
)LOOPRUH SURSRVHV WKH WHUP ¶IUDPLQJ ZKLFK LV DOVR FDOOHG ¶GRPDLQ· RU ¶EDVH· E\ /DQJDFNHU DQG categorization by Lakoff and many other cognitive linguists. It refers to the categorization of entities and scenes in order to compare it to prior experience. Thus, it is a construal operation based on the comparison (Langacker 1987, p. 103²105). The fundamental notion of framing is that linguistic units cannot be understood without being shared knowledge related to that unit. This means that concepts are not separated units; instead, they are part of a wider related structure.
Since the study focuses only on the dynamic scenes, the following scene illustrates the framing of that kind of scene:

p. The man wiped his hand over the boy's head. The boy remembered his father, who used to do the same when he slept.
Here, two different scenes are categorized within the same domain or frame. That is the action of 'wiping over the boy's head' that the man performs compared to what his father used to do.

Metaphor
The final construal operation that involves comparison is a metaphor. From CL point of view, metaphor is a conceptual system based on comparing two categories. In their Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) differentiate between two conceptual domains: source domain target domain. The former relates to the literal meaning from which we draw metaphorical expressions, while the latter concerns the information we try to understand. Understanding the source domain in terms of the target domain involves a set of corresponded elements, joined by a process known as mapping (Lakoff, 2006, p. 185). For instance, WKH SKUDVH ¶WR ZDVWH WLPH· )URP Croft and Cruse, 2004, p. 55) consists of a comparison between two domains: the target domain, represented by TIME; and the source domain, indicated by MONEY. That is, time is compared with money. In terms of construalization, metaphor provides us with two alternative construals to the same scene.   It is important to point out that the schematic scene-building and construalization are two different but overlapped domains. The former is analogically treated as the skeleton that is covered by the latter the body cannot have a skeleton without meat covering it and vice versa. Accordingly, these two systems form the basic part of the scene analysis.

Data Description
The data of the study involve the analysis of two scenes selected from Dan %URZQ·V The Da Vinci Code to be analyzed in terms of the model developed. The scenes are selected depending on the four features of a scene (time, place, participant(s), and theme). In other words, each scene happens at the same time and place and consists of the same characters and theme. Each scene includes a group of dynamic actions that are arranged sequentially. The researchers picked out 28 dynamic actions to be analyzed, as shown in the appendices.

The Analysis of Scene One
The scene revolves around two participants: the curator Jacques Saunière and his albino attacker. Because he is pursued, the curator grabs a Caravaggio painting from the wall to trigger the automated alarm and prison himself inside the Grand Gallery. As a result, the iron gate is dropped around the suite. Beyond the iron bars, the albino asks him to reveal where 'the ancient secret' is. The curator at first pretends that he does not know, but eventually, he is at gunpoint. However, Saunière has lied about the secret that he has carefully rehearsed many times. His attacker replies that the other three sénéchaux had said the same lie. Then he shoots Saunière in the stomach and leaves him to die. The curator realizes that his three brethren are dead, and he has only a few minutes to live. Therefore, he must pass on his important secret. 5.1.1.1

. Saliency
Saliency relates to how attention is distributed over the entities of a scene. The distribution of attention takes place when the writer selects the elements that affect the viewing arrangement of a scene and place them in the center of attention. In scene one, the writer highlights many elements that play a major role in arranging the scene and influencing its actions, such as the participants (Saunière and his attacker) and other entities (such as the vaulted archway, the gallery of the museum, the painting that Saunière Metaphor collided with, the iron gate and its bars, as well as the weapon that was used to kill Saunière). That is, all of these elements are onstage and are being clearly perceivable by the readers. However, other elements, such as the ceiling and walls of the gallery, Saunière's and his attacker's clothes, the paintings shown (except for the painting of Caravaggio with which Saunière collided), the type and size of weapon used to kill Saunière, etc., are off-stage elements. This means that the writer does not depict these irrelevant elements because they do not affect the sequential order of actions in the scene.
However, some onstage elements of the scene have gained a prominent position over others through the use of several linguistic construal aspects, which greatly affect the viewing arrangement of the moveable scene. One of these aspects used to the foreground and background entities are figure-ground alignment. Every dynamic scene has a figure that holds the prominent part of the scene and ground with less saliency. Consider the following sequential MISs taken from scene one: In scenes (1), (2), (3) and (5), Saunière, who is represented as the figure, holds the focus of attention. What makes Saunière more prominent or remarkable from other parts of the scene is that he is a moving or conceptually movable entity whose orientation.
On the other hand, the gallery, the masterpiece, and a heap beneath the canvas have somewhat a stationary setting. In the scene (4), by contrast, the figure of the masterpiece is more prominent than the wall, which is recognized as the ground. This is because the masterpiece has the feature of movement in this scene.
Another strategy of focusing attention is zooming, which is used to narrow the scope to reach the optimal lexical concept that holds the most scope of attention. In scene (1) above, the author narrows the scope, starting successively from the most distant scope of attention (i.e., the museum), which has a Grand Gallery consisting of the vaulted archway. The optimal lexical concept, the vaulted archway, holds the most scope of attention, while the general concept (the gallery) has the most distant scope.

Perspective
From the cognitive semantic perspective, the writer (i.e., Dan Brown) and the reader are part of the scenes, and thus, the scene is objectively construed. In the scene (1) above, the writer 3 depicts the scene for the reader in the way that Saunière staggered through the vaulted archway toward the Grand Gallery, which was in front of him, as seen in Figure 4, i.e., the viewing angle is toward the Gallery. Such type of viewpoint involves the motion perspective, i.e., the sequential mode:

Figure 4 7KH YLHZSRLQW RI WKH VFHQH ¶6DXQLqUH VWDJJHUHG WKURXJK WKH YDXOWHG DUFKZD\·
However, when Saunière went inside the Gallery, the angle of view, i.e., viewpoint or direction, is reversed 180 degrees. That is, Saunière is situated inside the Gallery and the attacker outside in the archway, as seen in the following scene.
1. Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. 3 The study regularly adopts the author·s viewpoint Perspective viewpoint X The archway The Gallery 7KH XVH RI VSDWLDO GHLFWLF H[SUHVVLRQV ¶ILIWHHQ IHHW DZD\· DQG ¶RXWVLGH· LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH ZULWHU GHSLFWV WKH VFHQH IURP WKH 6DXQLqUH· viewpoint. This can be illustrated in the following diagram.

Figure 5 7KH YLHZSRLQW RI WKH VFHQH ¶2QO\ ILIWHHQ IHHW DZD\ RXWVLGH WKH VHDOHG JDWH·
The writer also uses other prepositions to construe the same scene but in different ways. Consider the following two extracted scenes: 6. Saunière collapsed backwards in a heap beneath the canvas.

He crawled out from under the canvas.
Both scenes are conceptualized depending on two different spatial prepositions, in and under. In both scenes, Saunière is conceptualized under the canvas. But, in scene (7), the author focuses his vantage point from the top, while in scene (8), it is from the bottom. Therefore, he depicts the same scene in two different orientations.
The epistemic perspective has a key role in the construalization of scene one. The writer shows the shared knowledge between the participants through the use of definite and indefinite articles. For instance,

The mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars.
In scene (9), the author shows that Saunière does not share information about the person the voice came from; namely, he does not know about the attacker. In scene (10), Saunière knew that the voice had come out of the mountainous silhouette of his attacker. The author alters this perspective through the use of the definite article 'the'. This means that his epistemic perspective has reversed.

Judgement and Comparison
In scene one, the author categorizes different objects and actions in terms of others. Since the study concentrates on analyzing the dynamic scenes used in the selected novel, addressing how objects are categorized is out of our scope. The following scene, extracted from scene one, represents the framing process: 10. Almost cruelly, the bullet had missed his heart. As a veteran of la Guerre d'Algérie, the curator had witnessed this horribly drawnout death before.
In scene (11), the author links two scenes within one domain or frame. The scene of blood and murder was already categorized in Saunière's mind. This means that there is a kind of comparison between the scene that happened with him in the museum's Gallery and a prior scene when he was a veteran.

On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly.
Hence, there is a comparison between the actions of fear and freeze. The former represents the source domain, whereas the latter is the target domain. Their relationship can be diagrammed as follow: Perspective viewpoint

X2
The archway The Gallery

The Analysis of Scene Two
This scene includes many dynamic actions that take place between three characters: Teabing, Sophie, and Silas. Teabing and Sophie are at gunpoint by Silas (the albino), who orders them to hand him the keystone. While Teabing struggles with his crutches, he drops the keystone on the ground; and Silas lunges to save the stone. In the meantime, one of Teabing's crutches hits Silas's leg.
As Silas collapses to his right, his gun releases a bullet into the wall.

Construalization of Scene Two 5.2.1.1. Saliency
Saliency concerns the distribution of attention over the scenes or parts of a scene. This distribution is governed by a group of processes. The elements that have the most prominence are superior to those that have the least prominence in the scene or between the scenes. The more prominent elements are more important and more influential on the viewing arrangement of the scene than the other elements.
In scene two, the author focuses the attention on some elements of the scene, making them onstage. Among these onstage entities are the participants (Teabing and Silas), the stone or the cylinder, the crutch, the pistol and the bullet, and other entities that are being clearly perceivable by the readers. However, a lot of entities that are part of the spatial location of the scene are suppressed by the author because they are irrelevant to the sequential viewing arrangement of the scene.
One of the linguistic aspects used to foreground and background the entities of the scene is figure-ground alignment. The author selects some entities to be foregrounded in comparison to the ground entities that are backgrounded. Consider the following extracted scene: 12. Teabing slipped his right hand through one of his crutches and grasped the keystone in his left. 13. The crutch slid out from under him, and he began to topple sideways to his right.
In scene (13), the figure is Teabing, and the ground is his crutches since the former is more moveable. As we tend to focus our attention on the moveable aspects of a scene, Teabing in scene (13) carries the prominent part of the scene, and the crutch has less prominent. Unlike scene (13), Teabing is conceptualized as the ground in scene (14), whereas the figure is the crutch that is conceived as a moving entity. Therefore, the attention is focused on the crutch more than on Teabing.
Similarly, the following two scenes have inverted figure and ground distinction V

14.
No! Silas lunged to save the stone, lowering his weapon in the process. 15. But the keystone was moving away from him now.

Freeze
Change from dissolution to freezing Liquid: Water

Fear
Change from comfort to anxiety Liquid: blood In scene (15), Silas carries the focus of attention since it is conceptualized as the figure and the stone the ground. In comparison, Silas in scene (16) has somewhat a stationary location from which the figure, the keystone, moves away. In other words, Silas has less attention than the keystone. This can be shown in Figure 7 and The dashed circle refers to the figure that has the moving feature and the square to the ground entity. The dashed arrow indicates the form of movement. The entity X 1 is used to refer to Silas, whilst X 2 to the stone. The diagram shows that Silas, as the moving entity, lungs toward the stone, which is somewhat stationary. The focus of attention is on the moveable entity rather than the ground. The focus of attention is shifted when the stone becomes the figure, having the moving characteristic, and Silas the ground. The stone holds the focus because it is that entity that moves away from Silas.
Another aspect of saliency is the process of zooming. Narrow the scope is a strategy used by the writer when he narrows the scope, The grammatical organization of a scene also plays a fundamental role to foreground some entities over others. In different situations, the writer introduced one action to another. This is because they relate to the sequential relationship of actions that are happened later in time; or those that are occurred at an earlier time: before and after. Consider the following scenes: In (18), Teabing lurched before he stood erect; the action of falling in (19) also happened before swinging and buckling before crumpling. The three actions of lurching, falling, and buckling get the highest concentration. That is, the grammatical organization of actions occurs in sequential order.  construes a scene in the way that the stone is in front of Silas, who steps quickly to take it. This means that the viewpoint is directed toward the stone, as diagrammed in Figure 9:

Perspective
20. Silas stepped quickly forward to take the stone, and as he did, the man on crutches lost his balance. The dashed arrow refers to Silas' motion toward the stone that Teabing holds and is symbolized by a circle. As indicated in the diagram, the angle of view is forward toward the stone. Such viewpoint has the sequential mode, that is, the motion perspective.

Judgement and Comparison
Comparison is another construal operation used in scene two. The writer uses different aspects of comparison to compare a SDUWLFXODU HQWLW\ ZLWK DQRWKHU 2QH RI WKHVH DVSHFWV LV ¶IUDPLQJ· ZKLFK FRQFHUQV WKH categorizing of different entities within the same domain. For instance, the entities the weapon, the gun, the pistol and the bullet are used in different scenes to refer to the same tool (As shown in scenes 23, 24, and 25). All these linguistic units cannot be understood without shared knowledge related to the weapons domain.

Conclusion
Different conclusions can be drawn out in relation to the findings arrived at in this study. After investigating the construalization of sequential scenes in Dan Brown·V 7KH 'D 9LQFL &RGH, the study has come up with two conclusions. Theoretically, construalization plays a leading role in conceptualising the sequential viewing arrangement of a scene. Each scene has three construal operations: saliency, perspective and comparison. The former occurs when certain parts of a scene are highlighted over others. Saliency can be reflected linguistically through four aspects: onstage vs offstage, figure-ground alignment, zooming and grammatical saliency. The second operation is perspective which concerns the spatial and temporal imagery from which a situation is conceptualized. It is realized through three aspects: viewpoint, deixis, and subjectivity/objectivity. The final operation is a comparison related to how we construe a scene in relation to another. It can be reflected through framing, metaphor, and figure-ground relationships.
Practically, construalization plays an important role in the viewing arrangement of dynamic scenes. The writer selects certain entities that affect the viewing arrangement of the scenes and place them in the center of attention. That is, he highlights the elements that play a major role in arranging the scene and influencing its actions. The writer used different linguistic ways to make some onstage elements prominent. For instance, he ignores the entities that are irrelevant by making them offstage and narrows the scope of others by starting successively from the most general scope to a specific one. He also introduces one entity or action to another to be grammatically prominent. This is because it relates to the sequential relationship of actions that are happened later in time; or those that are occurred at an earlier time. The writer also adopted a specific vantage point from which a scene is conceptualized depending on a particular spatial or temporal position. This vantage point changes whenever the mover moves.