Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper investigates two tense-based constructions in English and Greek and one complementation construction in Greek, whose import is to effect a deictic shift and allow narration to proceed from the point of view of the narrated events and a participant therein. In addition to the individual formal and discourse-pragmatic properties of the patterns at hand, I focus on properties of the embedding context, showing that these unrelated constructions impose similar formal and interpretational requirements. This, in turn, supports the statement of generalizations at the level of genre, in this case empathetic narration as a special kind of narration that departs from the default past narrative which is deictically anchored to the narrator and the conversational coordinates. While the analysis adopts a bottom-up, language-driven approach to genre, it also refutes its exhaustive equation with linguistic conventions, arguing that a Bakhtinian view of genre, which includes both linguistic and socio-cultural dimensions, is more appropriate for the data at hand.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adamson, S
    (1995) From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivization as processes of language change. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 195–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, M
    (1986) Speech genres and other late essays (Translated by Vern W. McGee ). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bally, C
    (1912) Le style indirect libre en francais modern. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift4, 549–56 and 597–606.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Banfield, A
    (1982) Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bazerman, C
    (1994) Constructing experience. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benveniste, E
    (1966) Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bhatia, V.K
    (1993) Analysing genre. Language use in professional settings. London/New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D. , & Conrad, S
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D. , Connor, U. , & Upton, T
    (2007) Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/scl.28
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.28 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bosseaux, C
    (2004)  Translation and narration: A corpus-based study of French translations of two novels by Virginia Woolf . Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.
  11. Brinton, L
    (1995) Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker’. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 173–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.009 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, J
    (2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82, 711–733. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, J. , & Torres Cacoullos, R
    (2009) The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R.L. Corrigan , E.A. Moravcsik , H. Ouali , & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language, volume 1. Distribution and historical change (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.82.09the
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.09the [Google Scholar]
  14. Chafe, W
    (1980) The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Christidis, A
    (1981) ‘Οτι/πως - που: επιλογή δεικτών συμπληρωμάτων στα Νέα Ελληνικά [ Oti/pos –pu: complementizer selection in Modern Greek]. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα2 (pp.113–177). Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοι Κυριακίδη.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1986) Το μόρφημα που σαν αναφορικός δείκτης [The morpheme pu as an anaphoric marker]. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα7 (pp.135–148). Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοι Κυριακίδη.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
    (1987 [1993]) London: Harper Collins Publishers.
  18. Corbett, J
    (2006) Genre and genre analysis. In E.K. Brown & A. Anderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (pp. 26–32). Boston: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00514‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00514-9 [Google Scholar]
  19. Delveroudi, R. , Tsamadou, I. , & Vassilaki, S
    (1993) Contribution à l’ étude de la modalité en Grec Moderne: Le marqueurνα. Linguistique Formelle [Collection ERA 642]. Paris: Université Paris 7.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Eggins, S
    (2004) An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Emanatian, M
    (1997) The spatialization of judgement. In W.A. Liebert , G. Redeker , & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.131–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.151.11ema
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.151.11ema [Google Scholar]
  22. Fillmore, C.J
    (1981) Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 143–166). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 6, 222–254.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fludernik, M
    (1993) The fictions of language and the languages of fiction: The linguistic representation of speech and consciousness. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (2001) New wine in old bottles? Voice, focalization and new writing. New Literary History, 32(3), 619–638. doi: 10.1353/nlh.2001.0033
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nlh.2001.0033 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fried, M. , & Östman, J.-O
    (2004) Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J-O. Őstman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.2.02fri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.2.02fri [Google Scholar]
  28. (2005) Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 1752–1778. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.03.013 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ginzburg, J. , & Kolliakou, D
    (1997) Events and facts: A semantics of pu and oti clauses. Greek linguistics ‘95: Proceedings of the 2nd international congress on Greek linguistics, Vol. 2 (pp. 459–470). Graz: W. Neugebauer.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goldberg, A
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Haberlandt, K. , Sandson, J. , & Berian, C
    (1980) The episode schema in story processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 635–651. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(80)90331‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90331-X [Google Scholar]
  33. Halliday, M.A.K. , & Hasan, R
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longmans.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Holton, D. , Mackridge, P. , & Philippaki-Warburton, I
    (1997) Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Huddleston, R. , & Pullum, G.K
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Ji, S
    (2002) Identifying episode transitions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(9), 1257–1271. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00067‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00067-9 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kay, P. , & Fillmore, C.J
    (1999) Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75, 1–33. doi: 10.2307/417472
    https://doi.org/10.2307/417472 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kleris, C. , & Babiniotis, G
    (2005).Γραμματική της Νέας Ελληνικής (A grammar of Modern Greek). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuno, S
    (1987) Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kuno, S. , & Kaburaki, E
    (1977) Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–672.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Langacker, R
    (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 5–38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  42. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II, Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2000) Grammar and conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. (2001) The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 5, 251–272. doi: 10.1017/S1360674301000235
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674301000235 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mackridge, P
    (1985) The Modern Greek language: A descriptive analysis of standard Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Martin, J.R
    (1992) English text. System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.59
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  47. (1997) Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions (pp. 3–39). London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Michaelis, L
    (2004) Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.04mic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.04mic [Google Scholar]
  49. Michaelis, L. , & Lambrecht, K
    (1996) Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. doi: 10.2307/416650
    https://doi.org/10.2307/416650 [Google Scholar]
  50. Miller, C
    (1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151–167. doi: 10.1080/00335638409383686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
  51. Moser, A
    (1994).Ποιόν και απόψεις του ρήματος [Verbal aspect and aktionsart]. [Parousia Journal Monograph Series 30]. Athens: Parousia.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Newman, J. , & Rice, S
    (2006) Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 225–260). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Nicholas, N
    (1999)  The story of pu. The grammaticalization in space and time of a Modern Greek complementizer . Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. The University of Melbourne.
  54. Nikiforidou, K
    (2006) Subjective construal and factual interpretation in sentential complements. In A. Athanasiadou , B. Cornillie , & C. Canakis (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 347–374). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2010) Viewpoint and construction grammar: The case of past + now . Language and Literature, 19(3), 265–284. doi: 10.1177/0963947010370253
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010370253 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2011) Grammar and discourse: A constructional approach to discourse-based conventionality. [Parousia Journal Monograph Series 81]. Athens: Parousia.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. (2012) The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language and literature. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language. A multimodal perspective (pp.177–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.014
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.014 [Google Scholar]
  58. Nikiforidou, K. , Marmaridou, S. , & Mikros, G
    (2014) What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0060
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0060 [Google Scholar]
  59. Oshima, D.Y
    (2007) Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: A typological approach. Linguistics, 45, 727–763. doi: 10.1515/LING.2007.022
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.022 [Google Scholar]
  60. Östman, J-O
    (2005) Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J-O. Őstman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.3.06ost
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.3.06ost [Google Scholar]
  61. Papadopoulou, I
    (1994) The grammaticalization of the Modern Greek sentential complementation system. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Essex.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Short, M
    (1996) Exploring the language of poems, plays, and prose. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Steen, F. , & Turner, M
    (2013) Multimodal construction grammar. In M. Borkent , B. Dancygier , & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Steen, G
    (2011) Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In M. Callies , W. Keller , & A. Lohffer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/hcp.30.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.30.03ste [Google Scholar]
  65. Swales, J
    (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Turner, M
    (2014) Audiovisual constructions. Plenary talk, 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8) , Osnabrück University, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Dijk, T.A
    (1981) Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 177–195). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Varlokosta, S
    (1994) Factive complements in Modern Greek. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 238–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Wilkins, D.P
    (1992) Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2-3), 119–158. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(92)90049‑H
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90049-H [Google Scholar]
  70. Wright, S
    (1995) Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 151–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.008 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): complementation; deictic shift; empathy; English; genre; Greek; narration; tense; viewpoint
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error