Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238



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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  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]

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