1887
Volume 25, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Coordinating different viewpoints is an essential part of human interaction. Languages have evolved conventional ways of supporting this process: many linguistic items are somehow involved in viewpoint management, ranging from morphological elements and lexical units to grammatical constructions and narrative patterns. In this paper we propose a conceptual model for analysing how particular instances (or combinations) of such linguistic items can be used to coordinate the viewpoints of signallers, addressees, and third parties involved in an interaction event. In essence, our model augments Langacker’s (1987) “viewing arrangement” through the addition of a third dimension to the existing two. We discuss the details of our model using a range of examples from spoken discourse, newspaper articles, and literary fiction, and end by placing it in broader discussions on human social cognition.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18004.dui
2019-11-25
2020-10-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apperly, Ian
    2011Mindreaders: The cognitive basis for theory of mind. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981The dialogic imagination. Edited byMichael Holquist, translated byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin/London: Texas University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bal, Mieke
    1985Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berger, Peter L. & Thomas Luckmann
    1966The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dancygier, Barbara
    2012The language of stories: A cognitive approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dancygier, Barbara, Wei-lun Lu & Arie Verhagen
    (eds.) 2016Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities. (Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR] 55). Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dennett, Daniel C.
    1987The intentional stance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Du Bois, John W.
    1985 Competing motivations. InJohn Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 343–365. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
  10. 2003 Discourse and grammar. InMichael Tomasello (ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol.2. 47–87. London: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  12. Duijn, Max J. van
    2016 The lazy mindreader: A humanities perspective on mindreading and multiple-order intentionality. PhD Thesis, Leiden University.
  13. 2018 Readers’ mindreading challenges, and how they can inform cognitive science. Review of General Psychology22(2). 188–198. 10.1037/gpr0000142
    https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000142 [Google Scholar]
  14. Duijn, Max J. van, & Arie Verhagen
    2019 Recursive embedding of viewpoints, irregularity, and the role for a flexible framework. Pragmatics29(2). 198–225. 10.1075/prag.18049.van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18049.van [Google Scholar]
  15. Evans, Nicholas
    2010Dying words: Endangered languages and what they have to tell us. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1994Mental Spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fludernik, Monika
    1993The fiction of language and the languages of fiction. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Genette, Gérard
    1980Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Heyes, Cecilia
    2018Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674985155
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674985155 [Google Scholar]
  20. Hühn, Peter, Wolf Schmid & Jörg Schönert
    (eds.) 2009Point of view, perspective, and focalization: Modeling mediation in narrative. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218916
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218916 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hutchinson, Tom
    1988 Speech presentations in fiction with reference to The Tiger Moth by H. E. Bates. InMichael H. Short (ed.), Reading, analysing and teaching literature, 120–145. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2014 Subordination in a dynamic account of grammar. InLaura Visapää, Jyrki Kalliokoski, Helena Sorva (eds.). Contexts of subordination: Cognitive, typological and discourse perspectives, 17–72. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Leech, Geoffrey & Mick Short
    2007 [1981]Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. 2nd edn.Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McElreath, Richard & Joseph Henrich
    2007 Dual inheritance theory: The evolution of human cultural capacities and cultural evolution. InRobin Dunbar & Louise Barrett (eds.), Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McGregor, William B.
    1997Semiotic grammar. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Milligan, Karen, Janet Wilde Astington & Lisa Ain Dack
    2007 Language and theory of mind: Meta-analysis of the relation between language ability and false-belief understanding. Child Development78(2). 622–646. 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2007.01018.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01018.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    2010 Viewpoint and construction grammar: The case of past+now. Language and Literature19(3). 265–284. 10.1177/0963947010370253
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010370253 [Google Scholar]
  30. Owings, Donald H. & Eugene S. Morton
    1998Animal vocal communication: A new approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167901
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167901 [Google Scholar]
  31. Sanders, José
    2010 Intertwined voices: Journalists’ modes of representing source information in journalistic subgenres. English Text Construction3(2). 226–249. 10.1075/etc.3.2.06san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.3.2.06san [Google Scholar]
  32. Sanders, Ted, José Sanders & Eve Sweetser
    2009 Causality, cognition and communication: A mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. InTed Sanders & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition, 19–59. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110224429.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110224429.19 [Google Scholar]
  33. Seyfarth, Robert M., Dorothy L. Cheney & Peter Marler
    1980 Vervet monkey alarm calls: Semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Animal Behaviour28(4). 1070–1094. 10.1016/S0003‑3472(80)80097‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(80)80097-2 [Google Scholar]
  34. Sweetser, Eve
    1990From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  35. Tomasello, Michael
    2008Origins of human communication. Boston: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014A natural history of human thinking. Cambridge/London: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674726369
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674726369 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2002 Prenominal adjectives in English: Structures and ordering. Folia LinguisticaXXXVI3–4. 219–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 2004 Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation. Journal of Pragmatics36(3). 489–520.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 2007Mister so-called X: Discourse functions and subjectification of so-called. InChristopher S. Butler, Raquel Hidalgo Downing & Julia Lavid (eds.), Functional perspectives on grammar and discourse: In honour of Angela Downing, 359–394. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.85.20van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.85.20van [Google Scholar]
  40. 2009Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2012 “Wait till you got started”. How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. InBarbara Dancygier & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective, 198–218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.015 [Google Scholar]
  42. Verhagen, Arie
    2000 “The girl that promised to become something”: An exploration into diachronic subjectification in Dutch. InThomas F. Shannon & Johan P. Snapper (eds.). The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1997: The Dutch Language at the Millennium, 197–208. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2005Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2008a Intersubjectivity and explanation in linguistics – A reply to Hinzen and Van Lambalgen. Cognitive Linguistics19(1). 125–143. 10.1515/COG.2008.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.007 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2008b Intersubjectivity and the architecture of the language system. InJordan Zlatev, Timothy P. Racine, Chris Sinha & Esa Itkonen (eds.), The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity, 307–331. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/celcr.12.17ver
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12.17ver [Google Scholar]
  46. Wellman, Henry M.
    2014Making minds: How theory of mind develops. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199334919.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199334919.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Westh, Cecil
    1980H. E. Bates: The song of the wren, the dam, the tiger moth, Oh! Sweeter than the berry. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Wilkins, David
    1986 Particle/clitics for criticism and complaint in Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda). Journal of Pragmatics10(5). 575–596. 10.1016/0378‑2166(86)90015‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(86)90015-9 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18004.dui
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/pc.18004.dui
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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