Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238


In this paper we examine the semantics-pragmatics of the deictic motion verb ‘come’ in central and extended uses. We argue that a detailed language-specific analysis of and its systemic counterpart ‘go’ is necessary, since even at the level of basic appropriateness conditions, there are significant differences from other languages. Based on extensive corpus data, we further argue that in third-person discourse is a conventional means of adopting perspective. In particular, we show that the factors which are relevant to the speaker’s/narrator’s choice to identify with a particular point of view are amenable to a principled description which relies both on discoursal parameters and text-sensitive generalizations. Motivating the adoption-of-perspective uses is a subjectification shift whereby the speaker’s presence at the goal of motion becomes increasingly more implicit. Our results, therefore, add to the study of deixis in natural languages, point to the existence of generalizations in the complex factors that underlie construal and highlight some of the cognitive mechanisms involved in meaning shifts.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adamson, Sylvia
    (1995) From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivisation as processes of language change. In D. Stein , and S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195-224. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bella, Spyridoula
    (2001) Η δείξη στα Νέα Ελληνικά. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Athens.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brinton, Laurel
    (1995) Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker. In D. Stein , and S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151-172.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen C. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Christidis, Anastasios Ph
    (1991) On the categorical status of particles: The case for holophrasis. Lingua82: 53-82. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(90)90055‑P
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(90)90055-P [Google Scholar]
  6. Fillmore, Charles
    (1966) Deictic categories in the semantics of 'come'. Foundations of Language2: 219-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1975) The Santa Cruz lectures on deixis (1971) . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1982) Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R.J. Jarvella , and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related subjects. New York: Wiley, pp. 31-59.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1983) How to know whether you are coming or going. In G. Rauh (ed.), Essays on deixis. Tubingen: Narr, pp. 219-227.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Gathercole, Virginia
    (1977) A study of the comings and goings ofthe speakers of four languages: Spanish, Japanese, English and Turkish. Kansas working papers in linguistics, Vol. 2: 61-94.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Goddard, Cliff
    (1997) The semantics of coming and going. Pragmatics 7.2: 147-162.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1964) Comparison and translation. In M.A.K. Halliday , M. Mcintosh , and P. Stevens (eds.), The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Langacker, Ronald
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics1-1: 5-38. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.5 [Google Scholar]
  15. (1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1993) Universals of construal. In J. Guentez , B. Kaiser , and C. Zoll (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 447-463.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (1997) Consciousness, construal and subjectivity. In M.I. Stamenov (ed.), Language structure, discourse and the access to consciousness. Advances in Consciousness Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 49-75. doi: 10.1075/aicr.12.05lan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.12.05lan [Google Scholar]
  18. (2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics12-2: 143-188. doi: 10.1515/cogl.12.2.143
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.12.2.143 [Google Scholar]
  19. Levinson, Stephen C
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lyons, John
    (1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Marmaridou, Sophia A
    (2000) Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.72
    https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pbns.72 [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller, George A. , and Philip Johnson-Laird
    (1976) Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.4159/harvard.9780674421288
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674421288 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mushin, Ilana
    (2001) Discourse analysis: Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.87
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.87 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pander Maat, Henk , and Ted Sanders
    (2001) Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics12-3: 247-273.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Rubba, Jo
    (1996) Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In E. Sweetser , and G. Fauconnier (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 227-261.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sweetser, Eve , and Gilles Fauconnier
    (1996) Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In E. Sweetser , and G. Fauconnier (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Veloudis, Giorgos
    (1977) Διήγησις Αλεξάνδρου του Μακδόνος (Narration of Alexander the Macedonian). Athens: Modern Greek Library.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Verschueren, Jef
    (1999) Understanding pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney, Auckland: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Wilkins, David P. , and Deborah Hill
    (1995) When "go" means "come": Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics6-2/3: 209-259. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2‑3.209
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2-3.209 [Google Scholar]
  30. Wright, Susan
    (1995) Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In D. Stein , and S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151-172. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.008 [Google Scholar]
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