1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Language and Culture
  4. Volume 12, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2214-3157
  • E-ISSN: 2214-3165
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

We analyze the theater performance of a dilemma enacted as dialogic solitude speech, involving (Pascual 2002, 2006, 2014). The scene, from Shakespeare’s , represents the conflicting thoughts of character Lancelet as clashing advice from two invisible interlocutors, i.e., Conscience and Fiend. The actor swiftly and constantly shifts viewpoint between the three, employing linguistic, vocal, gestural, spatial, and artifactual signs. We find that: (i) the scene involves intricate conceptual mappings between the theater script, the character’s mental world, and the Here-and-Now of the on-stage performance; (ii) such an imaginary dialogue is particularly suited for theater expression, rendering characters’ thoughts accessible to the audience, who are turned fictive bystanders (see Xiang 2016); and (iii) this fictional solitude-speech performance is deeply rooted in the societal norms and values of Shakespeare’s age. We suggest that the interactional structure of inner speech may be as varied as the outer speech that it mimics and emerges from.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00072.hua
2026-02-05
2026-02-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00072.hua
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abrantes, A. M.
    (2009) Fictive interaction as an instance of theatricality in cognition. Available at SSRN 1409396.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, M.
    (1981) Forms of time and of the chronotope in the novel. InM. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays, 11 (pp.84–259). Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Brandt, L.
    (2008) A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. InT. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp.110–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170.05bra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.05bra [Google Scholar]
  4. (2013) The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Brandt, L., & Pascual, E.
    (2016) “Say hello to this ad”: The persuasive rhetoric of fictive interaction in marketing. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.303–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.15bra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.15bra [Google Scholar]
  6. Cicourel, A. V.
    (1973) Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction. New York: Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (1978) Interpretation and summarization: Issues in the child’s acquisition of social structure. InGlick, J. & A. Clarke-Stewart (Eds.), The development of social understanding (pp.251–281). New York: Gardner Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Cienki, A.
    (1998) Metaphoric gestures and some of their relations to verbal metaphoric expressions. InJ.-P. Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and cognition: Bridging the gap (pp.189–204). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. (2023) Speakers’ gestures and semantic analysis. Cognitive Semantics, 9(2), 167–191. 10.1163/23526416‑bja10051
     https://doi.org/10.1163/23526416-bja10051 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cienki, A., & Giansante, G.
    (2014) Conversational framing in televised political discourse: A comparison from the 2008 elections in the United States and Italy. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(2), 255–288. 10.1075/jlp.13.2.04cie
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.2.04cie [Google Scholar]
  11. Couper-Kuhlen, E., & Selting, M.
    (2001) Studies in Interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.10 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dale, D.
    (1972) Shona companion. Gwelo: Mambo Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dennett, D. C.
    (1996) Kinds of Minds: Towards an understanding of consciousness. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Bois, J. W.
    ([2009] 2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2011) Co-opting intersubjectivity. The rhetorical emergence of culture. InCh. Meyer & F. Girke (Eds.), The rhetorical emergence of culture (pp.52–83). Oxford: Berghahn.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dudis, P. G.
    (2004) Body partitioning and real-space blends. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(2), 223–238. 10.1515/cogl.2004.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fauconnier, G.
    ([1985] 1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (1997) Mappings in thought and language. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139174220
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174220 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M.
    (1994) Conceptual projection and middle spaces. Technical Report No. 9401. San Diego: University of California.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (1998) Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science, 22(2), 133–187. 10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2202_1 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Fauconnier, G.
    (2007) Mental spaces. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp.351–376). Oxford: University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Fillmore, C.
    (1982) Story grammars and sentence grammars: Some considerations. Journal of Pragmatics, 6(5–6), 451–454. 10.1016/0378‑2166(82)90018‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(82)90018-2 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fonseca, P., Pascual, E., & Oakley, T.
    (2020) “Hi, Mr. President!”: Fictive interaction blends as a unifying rhetorical strategy in satire. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 18(1), 180–212. 10.1075/rcl.00056.fon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00056.fon [Google Scholar]
  26. Geurts, B.
    (2021) First saying, then believing: The pragmatic roots of folk psychology. Mind and Language, 36(4), 515–532. 10.1111/mila.12345
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12345 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goffman, E.
    (1963) Behavior in public places: Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. (1981) Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Grice, H. P.
    (1975) Logic and conversation. InP. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Güldemann, T.
    (2002) When ‘say’ is not say: The functional versatility of the Bantu quotative marker ti with special reference to Shona. InT. Güldemann & M. von Roncador (Eds.), Reported discourse: A meeting ground for different linguistic domains (pp.255–287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52.18gul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.18gul [Google Scholar]
  31. (2008) Quotative indexes in African languages: A synchronic and diachronic survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110211450
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211450 [Google Scholar]
  32. Haiman, J.
    (1989) Alienation in grammar. Studies in Language, 13(1), 129–170. 10.1075/sl.13.1.05hai
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.13.1.05hai [Google Scholar]
  33. Hasegawa, N.
    (2010) Thetic judgment as presentational. Journal of Japanese Linguistics, 26(1), 5–26. 10.1515/jjl‑2010‑0103
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jjl-2010-0103 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hirsh, J.
    (2003) Shakespeare and the history of soliloquies. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. (2012) Dialogic self-address in Shakespeare’s plays. Shakespeare, 8(3), 312–327. 10.1080/17450918.2012.696280
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17450918.2012.696280 [Google Scholar]
  36. Huang, L.
    (2025) Creative conversation metaphors as rhetorical tactic in Shakespearean theatre. Master’s thesis. Shanghai International Studies University.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Hutchins, E.
    (1995) Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2005) Material anchors for conceptual blends. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1555–1577. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  39. Izutsu, M. N., & Izutsu, K.
    (2019) Why is Twitter so popular in Japan? Linguistic devices for monologization. Internet Pragmatics, 2(2), 260–289. 10.1075/ip.00030.izu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00030.izu [Google Scholar]
  40. (In press). Speaking while thinking: How dialogic is Japanese solitude speech?International Journal of Language and Culture12(1), 20–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Izutsu, K., Koguma, T. & Izutsu, M. N.
    (In press). When to prefer split-self conceptions: Self-reference in solitude speech in Ainu, English, Japanese, and Korean. International Journal of Language and Culture12(1), 118–154.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Jakobson, R.
    (1953) The strategy of phonemics. InC. Lévi-Strauss, R. Jakobson, C. F. Voegelin, & T. A. Sebeok (Eds.), Results of the conference of anthropologists and linguists [Memoir 8]. International Journal of American Linguistics, 19(2), 11–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (1990) Langue and parole: Code and message. InL. R. Waugh & M. Monville-Burston (Eds.), On language (pp.80–109). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kjeldgaard-Christiansen, J., Boyd, Z., Hejná, M. & Eaton, M.
    (2025) Good and evil in the voices of fictional characters: A perception study. Journal of Language and Pop Culture, 1(2), 248–275. 10.1075/jlpop.24025.kje
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlpop.24025.kje [Google Scholar]
  45. Koguma, T. & K. Izutsu
    . (In press). Self-addressed solitude speech: A cross-linguistic perspective. International Journal of Language and Culture12(1).
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Liddell, S. K.
    (1995) Real, surrogate and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL. InK. Emmorey & J. Reilly (Eds.), Language, gesture and space (pp.19–41). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (1996) Spatial representations in discourse: Comparing spoken and signed language. Lingua, 981, 145–167. 10.1016/0024‑3841(95)00036‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(95)00036-4 [Google Scholar]
  48. (1998) Grounded blends, gestures and conceptual shifts. Cognitive Linguistics9(3), 283–314. 10.1515/cogl.1998.9.3.283
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.3.283 [Google Scholar]
  49. Linell, P.
    (2009) Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Maus, K. E.
    (1995) Inwardness and theater in the English Renaissance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. McIntyre, D.
    (2008) Integrating multimodal analysis and the stylistics of drama: A multimodal perspective on Ian McKellen’s Richard III. Language and Literature, 17(4), 309–334. 10.1177/0963947008095961
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947008095961 [Google Scholar]
  52. McNeill, D.
    (Ed.) (2000) Language and gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620850
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620850 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2013) Gesture as a window onto mind and brain, and the relationship to linguistic relativity and ontogenesis. InC. Müller, (Eds.), Body — Language — Communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, vol.11 (pp.28–54). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110261318.28
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110261318.28 [Google Scholar]
  54. Mead, G. H.
    [1934] 2009 The self. InMind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist (pp.135–226). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Melser, D.
    (2004) The act of thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1078.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1078.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  56. Murphy, S.
    (2015) I will proclaim myself what I am: Corpus stylistics and the language of Shakespeare’s soliloquies. Language and Literature, 24(4), 338–354. 10.1177/0963947015598183
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947015598183 [Google Scholar]
  57. Oakley, T.
    (Forthcoming). Cognitive semiotics. InH. Nesi & P. Milin Eds. The International Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. O’Connell, D. C., & Kowal, S.
    (2008) Communicating with one another: Toward a psychology of spontaneous spoken discourse. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑77632‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77632-3 [Google Scholar]
  59. Pang, K.-Y. S.
    (2005) ‘This is the linguist in me speaking’: Constructions for talking about the self. Functions of Language, 12(1), 1–38. 10.1075/fol.12.1.02pan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.02pan [Google Scholar]
  60. Pascual, E.
    (2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. (2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. 10.1515/COG.2006.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2008a) Fictive interaction blends in everyday life and courtroom settings. InA. Hougaard & T. Oakley (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp.79–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170.04pas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.04pas [Google Scholar]
  63. (2008b) Text for context, trial for trialogue: An ethnographic study of a fictive interaction blend. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 61, 50–82. 10.1075/arcl.6.04pas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.04pas [Google Scholar]
  64. (2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.47
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.47 [Google Scholar]
  65. Pascual, E., & Królak, E.
    (2018) The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in English literary bestsellers and their Polish and Spanish translations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 399–430. 10.1075/rcl.00016.pas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00016.pas [Google Scholar]
  66. Pascual, E., & Sandler, S.
    (2016) Fictive interaction and the conversation frame. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.1–22). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.01pas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.01pas [Google Scholar]
  67. Plato
    Plato (1921) Plato in twelve volumes (trans.H. N. Fowler), vol.121. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rosenthal, V.
    (2012) La voix de l’intérieur. Intellectica, 58(2), 53–89. 10.3406/intel.2012.1101
     https://doi.org/10.3406/intel.2012.1101 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sandler, S. & E. Pascual
    (2019) In the beginning there was conversation: Fictive speech in the Hebrew Bible. Pragmatics29(2), 250–276. 10.1075/prag.18047.san
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18047.san [Google Scholar]
  70. Slobin, D. I.
    (2014) From speech with others to speech for self: A case study of “externalized drama”. InI. Arnon, M. Casillas, Ch. Kurumada & B. Estigarribia (Eds.), Language in Interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark (pp.315–331). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tilar.12.23slo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.12.23slo [Google Scholar]
  71. Sullivan, K.
    (2016) Silent abstractions versus “Look at me” drawings: Corpus evidence that artworks’ subject matter affects their fictive speech. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.87–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.05sul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.05sul [Google Scholar]
  72. Sweetser, E.
    (1987) The definition of lie: An examination of the folk models underlying a semantic prototype. InD. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp.43–66). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.003
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.003 [Google Scholar]
  73. (2004) “The suburbs of your good pleasure”: Cognition, culture and the bases of metaphoric structure. InG. Bradshaw, T. Bishop & M. Turner (Eds.), The Shakespearean international yearbook, vol.41 (pp.24–55). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Fictive Motion in Language and ‘ception.’ InToward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systemsVol.11 (pp.99–175). Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6847.003.0005 [Google Scholar]
  75. Uhr, L.
    (1973) Pattern Recognition, Learning, and Thought. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Voloshinov, V. N.
    (1986) Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1962) Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.1037/11193‑000
     https://doi.org/10.1037/11193-000 [Google Scholar]
  78. Weimann, R.
    (1978) Shakespeare and the popular tradition in the theater: Studies in the social dimension of dramatic form and function. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 10.56021/9780801819858
     https://doi.org/10.56021/9780801819858 [Google Scholar]
  79. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1974) The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Research on Language & Social Interaction, 7(3–4), 267–307. 10.1080/08351817409370375
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817409370375 [Google Scholar]
  80. Xiang, M.
    (2016) Real, imaginary, or fictive?InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.63–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.04xia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.04xia [Google Scholar]
  81. (2023) Fictive questions in the Zhuangzi: A cognitive rhetorical study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.18 [Google Scholar]
  82. Zlatev, J., Racine, T. P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E.
    (Eds.) (2008) The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.12
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12 [Google Scholar]
  83. Zlatev, J.
    (2018) Mimesis theory, learning, and polysemiotic communication. InM. A. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory (pp.1–6). Singapore: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00072.hua
Loading
Dramatized internal dialogue in a comedy by Shakespeare
International Journal of Language and Culture 12, 155 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.00072.hua
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00072.hua
/content/journals/10.1075/ijolc.00072.hua
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual blending; fictive interaction; polysemiosis; solitude speech; theater

Most Cited

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