1887
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates questions of perspective shift or non-shift against a background of a basic deictic-cognitive divide in our understanding of what comes under the linguistic notion of perspective. In differentiating ‘distancing’ from ‘free’ indirect speech/thought in narratives, it proposes a new lens through which to reconsider a class of examples controlled in curious ways by the narrator’s deictic and cognitive perspective. Turning to a newer mode of communication – that of Internet memes combining set phrases and images in one multimodal package – the paper shows that despite this novelty, unusual uses of quotation in memes in fact join the ranks of existing non-quotative uses of quotation to express a stance rather than genuinely shift to a different discourse source. The paper also touches on the question of the constructional status of the ‘old’ and ‘new’ phenomena investigated.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18046.van
2019-03-12
2019-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Banville, John
    1998 [1989]The Book of Evidence. London: Picador.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Eugenides, Jeffrey
    2012 [2011]The Marriage Plot. London: Fourth Estate.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Forster, E. M.
    1976 [1908]A Room with a View. Hardmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Lawrence, D. H.
    1971 [1920]Women in Love. London: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Macdonald, Helen
    2014H is for Hawk. London: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ralph, Devlin Garrett
    2012 “‘I Love Your Crocs’ – Nobody.” Picture taken on 24 February 2012 at OCAD University in downtown Toronto. Published on Flickr at:https://www.flickr.com/photos/devlinralph/6786127900. Reproduced by permission.
  7. Roth, Philip
    1994 [1967]Portnoy’s Complaint. New York: Vintage International.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2005 [1979]The Ghost Writer. London: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Smith, Ali
    2011 [2006]The Accidental. London: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. St Aubyn, Edward
    2012 [1992]Never Mind. London: Picador.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Woolf, Virginia
    1964 [1927]To the Lighthouse. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books in association with The Hogarth Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1965 [1937]The Years. London: The Hogarth Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Adamson, Sylvia
    1995 “From Empathetic Deixis to Empathetic Narrative: Stylisation and (De-)Subjectivisation as Processes of Language Change.” InSubjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, ed. byDieter Stein, and Susan Wright, 195–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554469.010 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ariel, Mira
    1990Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Banfield, Ann
    1982Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bauer, Laurie, Rochelle Lieber, and Ingo Plag
    2013The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bergen, Benjamin K.
    2012Louder Than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bray, Joe
    2007 “The ‘Dual Voice’ of Free Indirect Discourse: A Reading Experiment.” Language and Literature16 (1): 37–52. 10.1177/0963947007072844
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007072844 [Google Scholar]
  19. Clark, Eve V.
    1997 “Conceptual Perspective and Lexical Choice in Acquisition.” Cognition64 (1): 1–37. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(97)00010‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00010-3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cukor-Avila, Patricia
    2002 “She Say, She Go, She Be Like: Verbs of Quotation Over Time in African American Vernacular English.” American Speech77 (1): 3–31. 10.1215/00031283‑77‑1‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-77-1-3 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dancygier, Barbara
    2005 “Blending and Narrative Viewpoint: Jonathan Raban’s Travels through Mental Spaces.” Language and Literature14 (2): 99–127. 10.1177/0963947005051281
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947005051281 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2012The Language of Stories: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dancygier, Barbara, and Eve Sweetser
    2005Mental Spaces in Grammar: Conditional Constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486760
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760 [Google Scholar]
  24. Barbara Dancygier, and Eve Sweetser
    (eds) 2012Viewpoint in Language: A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727 [Google Scholar]
  25. Dancygier, Barbara, Wei-lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen
    2016Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Language and Modalities. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dancygier, Barbara, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2016 “Discourse Viewpoint as Network.” InDancygier, Lu, and Verhagen (eds), 13–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (eds) 2017aViewpoint Phenomena in Multimodal Communication. Special issue ofCognitive Linguistics28 (3).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2017b Internet memes as multimodal constructions. Cognitive Linguistics28 (3): 565–598. 10.1515/cog‑2017‑0074
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2017-0074 [Google Scholar]
  29. Davidse, Kristin, and Lieven Vandelanotte
    2011 “Tense Use in Direct and Indirect speech in English.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (1): 236–250. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.022
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.022 [Google Scholar]
  30. Dillon, George L., and Frederick Kirchhoff
    1976 “On the Form and Function of Free Indirect Style.” A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature (PTL)1: 431–440.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ehrlich, Susan
    1990Point of View. A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner
    2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Fludernik, Monika
    1993The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Galbraith, Mary
    1995 “Deictic Shift Theory and the Poetics of Involvement in Narrative.” InDeixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective, ed. byJudith F. Duchan, Gail A. Bruder, and Lynne E. Hewitt, 19–59. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Genette, Gérard
    1980Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 1988Narrative Discourse Revisited. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gentens, Caroline, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck, and An Van linden
    . This issue. “Irregular Perspective Shifts and Perspective Persistence: Discourse-oriented and Theoretical Approaches.”
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hough, Graham
    1970 “Narration and Dialogue in Jane Austen.” The Critical Quarterly12: 201–229. 10.1111/j.1467‑8705.1970.tb02333.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8705.1970.tb02333.x [Google Scholar]
  39. Janzen, Terry
    2012 “Two Ways of Conceptualizing Space: Motivating the Use of Static and Rotated Vantage Point Space in ASL Discourse.” InDancygier and Sweetser (eds), 156–174.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kuno, Susumu
    1987Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lou, Adrian
    2017 “Multimodal Simile: The “When” Meme in Social Media Discourse.” English Text Construction10 (1): 106–131. 10.1075/etc.10.1.06lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.10.1.06lou [Google Scholar]
  43. McGregor, William B.
    1997Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mey, Jacob L.
    1999When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics (Trends in Linguistics 115). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110801415
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801415 [Google Scholar]
  45. Milner, Ryan M.
    2016The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034999.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034999.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Niederhoff, Burkhard
    2009 “Focalization.” InHandbook of Narratology, ed. byPeter Hühn, John Pier, Wolf Schmid, and Jörg Schönert, 115–123. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nikiforidou, Kiki
    2012 “The Past + Now in Language and Literature.” InDancygier and Sweetser (eds), 177–197.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Palmer, Alan
    2004Fictional Minds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pascal, Roy
    1977The Dual Voice: Free Indirect Speech and Its Functioning in The Nineteenth Century European Novel. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Pascual, Esther
    2014Fictive 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]
  51. Sandler, Sergeiy, and Esther Pascual
    . This issue. “In the Beginning There Was Conversation: Fictive Direct Speech in the Hebrew Bible.”
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Shifman, Limor
    2014Memes in Digital Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sotirova, Violeta
    2004 “Connectives in Free Indirect Style: Continuity or Shift?” Language and Literature13 (3): 216–234. 10.1177/0963947004044872
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004044872 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2006 “Reader Responses to Narrative Point of View.” Poetics34 (2): 108–133. 10.1016/j.poetic.2005.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2005.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 1st ed.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Si, Aung, and Stef Spronck
    . This issue. “Solega Defenestration: Underspecified Perspective Shift in an Unwritten Dravidian Language.”
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Sweetser, Eve
    2012 “Introduction: Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture, from the Ground Down.” InDancygier and Sweetser (eds), 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Tannen, Deborah
    1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2004a “Deixis and Grounding in Speech and Thought Representation.” Journal of Pragmatics36 (3): 489–520. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  60. 2004b “From Representational to Scopal ‘Distancing Indirect Speech or Thought’: A Cline of Subjectification.” TEXT24 (4): 547–585. 10.1515/text.2004.24.4.547
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.24.4.547 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2009Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive-functional Approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2012 “‘Wait Till You Got Started’: How to Submerge Another’s Discourse in Your Own.” InDancygier and Sweetser (eds), 198–218.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 2017 “Viewpoint.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byBarbara Dancygier, 157–171. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.011 [Google Scholar]
  64. . Forthcoming. “Clearer Contours: The Stylization of Free Indirect Speech in Nineteenth-Century Fiction.” InSpeech Representation in the History of English ed. by Peter Grund, and Terry Walker. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Vandelanotte, Lieven, and Barbara Dancygier
    2017Multimodal Artefacts and the Texture of Viewpoint. Special issue of Journal of Pragmatics122.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. van der Voort, Cok
    1986 “Hoe vrij is de vrije indirecte rede? [How free is free indirect discourse?]” Forum der Letteren4: 241–255.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Van Duijn, Max, and Arie Verhagen
    . This issue. “Language, Intersubjectivity, and Recursive Mindreading.”
    [Google Scholar]
  68. von Roncador, Manfred
    1988Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede: Nichtwörtliche direkte Rede, erlebte Rede, logophorische Konstruktionen und Verwandtes (Linguistische Arbeiten 192). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111678764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111678764 [Google Scholar]
  69. Zeman, Sonja
    . This issue. “The Emergence of Viewpoints in Multiple Perspective Constructions.”
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Zenner, Eline, and Dirk Geeraerts
    2018 “One Does Not Simply Process Memes: Image Macros as Multimodal Constructions.” InCultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research, ed. byEsme Winter-Froemel and Verena Thaler, 167–193. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110586374‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110586374-008 [Google Scholar]
  71. Zribi-Hertz, Anne
    1989 “Anaphor Binding and Narrative Point of View: English Reflexive Pronouns in Sentence and Discourse.” Language65 (4): 695–727. 10.2307/414931
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414931 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18046.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.18046.van
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