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



This paper discusses several conventional perspective operators at the lexical, grammatical, and narrative levels. When combined with each other and with particular contexts, these operators can amount to unexpected viewpoints arrangements. Traditional conceptualisations in terms of viewpoint embedding and the regular shifting from one viewpoint to the other are argued to be insufficient for describing these arrangements in all their nuances and details.

We present an analysis of three cases in which viewpoints of speaker, addressee, and third parties are mutually coordinated: (i) global and local perspective structure in Nabokov’s novel , (ii) postposed reporting constructions in Dutch, and (iii) the Russian apprehensive construction, which has a seemingly redundant negation marker in the subordinate clause. For each of these three cases, we discuss how traditional conceptualisations fall short. We discuss an alternative model of viewpoint construction which allows for the conceptual juxtaposition and mixing of different and simultaneously activated viewpoints.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Apperly, I.
    2011Mindreaders. The Cognitive Basis for Theory of Mind. New York: Psychology Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bal, M.
    2009 Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: Toronto UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Banfield, A.
    1978 “Where Epistemology, Style, and Grammer Meet Literary History: The Development of Represented Speech and Thought.” New Literary History9 (3): 415–454. 10.2307/468449
    https://doi.org/10.2307/468449 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baydina, E.
    2017 “The Russian Apprehensive Construction: Syntactic Status Reassessed, Negation Vindicated”. MA ThesisLeiden University. [https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/46284]
  5. Bennett, J.
    1976Linguistic Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boyd, B.
    1991Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. 10.1515/9781400884032
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400884032 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boye, K. and P. Harder
    2007 “Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language31: 569–606. 10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.31.3.03boy [Google Scholar]
  8. Budelmann, F. and P. Easterling
    2010 “Reading Minds in Greek Tragedy.” Greece and Rome57 (2): 289–303. 10.1017/S0017383510000033
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017383510000033 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cefalu, P.
    2013 “The Burdens of Mind Reading in Shakespeare’s Othello: A Cognitive and Psychoanalytic Approach to Iago’s Theory of Mind.” Shakespeare Quarterly64 (3): 265–294. 10.1353/shq.2013.0039
    https://doi.org/10.1353/shq.2013.0039 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, H. H.
    1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  11. Corballis, M. C.
    2011The Recursive Mind. The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization. Princeton: Princeton UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Dancygier, B.
    2012The Language of Stories. A Cognitive Approach. New York: Cambridge UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser
    2012Viewpoint in Language. A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dancygier, B., W. Lu, and A. Verhagen
    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]
  15. Dennett, D. C.
    1987The Intentional Stance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Du Bois, John W.
    2007 “The Stance Triangle.” InStancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. byR. Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  17. Duijn, M. J. van
    2016 The Lazy Mindreader. A Humanities Perspective on Mindreading and Multiple-Order Intentionality. PhD Thesis, Leiden University.
  18. 2016a “Van binnenuit bekeken. Gedachtenlezen en ingebedde perspectieven in Mrs Dalloway en De maagd Marino.” Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde132: 383–400.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Duijn, M. J. van, I. Sluiter, and A. Verhagen
    2015 “When Narrative Takes Over: The Representation of Embedded Mindstates in Shakespeare’s Othello’. Language and Literature24: (2): 148–166. 10.1177/0963947015572274
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947015572274 [Google Scholar]
  20. Duijn, M. J. van and A. Verhagen
    . In press. “Beyond Triadic Communication: a Three-dimensional Conceptual Space for Modeling Intersubjectivity”. Pragmatics & Cognition.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dunbar, R. I. M.
    2005 “Why Are Good Writers So Rare? An Evolutionary Perspective on Literature.” J Cult Evol Psychol3: 7–21. 10.1556/JCEP.3.2005.1.1
    https://doi.org/10.1556/JCEP.3.2005.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008 “Mind the Gap or Why Human Aren’t Just Great Apes.” Proceedings of the British Academy154: 403–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, N.
    2006 “View With a View: Towards a Typology of Multiple Perspective Constructions.” InProceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. byR. T. Cover, and Y. Kim, 93–120. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 2007 “Insubordination and Its Uses.” In: Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, ed. byI. Nikolaeva, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fludernik, M.
    1993The Fiction of Language and the Languages of Fiction. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Grice, H. P.
    1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review66 (3): 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  27. Horn, L. R.
    2010 “Multiple Negation in English and Other Languages.” InThe Expression of Negation, ed. byL. R. Horn, 111–148. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110219302.111
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219302.111 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jespersen, O.
    1917Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Langacker, R. W.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1990Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Launay, J., E. Pearce, R. Wlodarski, M. J. van Duijn, J. Carney, and R. I. M. Dunbar
    2015 “Higher-Order Mentalising and Executive Functioning.” Psychology and Individual Differences86: 6–14. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.021
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.021 [Google Scholar]
  32. Leech, G., and M. Short
    2007 [1981]Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. Second Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lichtenberk, František
    1995 “Apprehensional Epistemics”. InModality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. byJ. Bybee, and S. Fleischman, 293–327. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/tsl.32.12lic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.32.12lic [Google Scholar]
  34. Mey, J.
    1999When Voices Clash. A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110801415
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110801415 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nabokov, V.
    1997 [1959]Lolita. London: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Newmeyer, F. J.
    2010 “What Conversational English Tells Us About the Nature of Grammar: A Critique of Thompson’s Analysis of Object Complements.” InLanguage Usage and Language Structure, ed. byK. Boye and E. Engberg-Pedersen, 3–43. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nilsson, N. Z.
    2012 “Peculiarities of Expressing the Apprehensive in Russian.” The Russian Verb. Oslo Studies in Language4 (1): 53–70.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Palmer, A.
    2004Fictional Minds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Phelan, J.
    2007 “Estranging Unreliability, Bonding Unreliability, and the Ethics of “Lolita”.” Narrative15 (2): 222–238. 10.1353/nar.2007.0012
    https://doi.org/10.1353/nar.2007.0012 [Google Scholar]
  40. Premack, D. G., and G. Woodruff
    1978 “Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences1: 515–526. 10.1017/S0140525X00076512
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00076512 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schelfhout, C.
    2000 “Corpus-Based Analysis of Parenthetical Reporting Clauses.” InComputational Linguistics in the Netherlands 1998; Selected Papers from the Ninth CLIN Meeting, ed. byF. I. Van Eynde, I. Schuurman, and N. Schelkens, 147–59. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Scott-Phillips, T. C.
    2015Speaking Our Minds. Why Human Communication is Different and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Shultz, S. and R. I. M. Dunbar
    2007 “The Evolution of the Social Brain: Anthropoid Primates Contrast with Other Vertebrates”. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London274B: 2429–2436. 10.1098/rspb.2007.0693
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2007.0693 [Google Scholar]
  44. Sperber, D.
    1994 “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In: What is Intelligence?, ed. byJ. Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sweetser, E.
    1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 10.1017/CBO9780511620904
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620904 [Google Scholar]
  46. 2012 “Introduction: Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture, From the Ground Down.” InDancygier and Sweetser (eds) 2012: 1–22. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Toolan, M.
    1998Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Tomasello, M.
    2008Origins of Human Communication. Boston: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7551.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Turner, M., and G. Fauconnier
    1995 “Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity10 (3): 183–203. 10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1003_3 [Google Scholar]
  50. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2009Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive- Functional Approach. (Topics in English Linguistics 65). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  51. Verhagen, A.
    2005Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 2010 “Usage, Structure, Scientific Explanation, and the Role of Abstraction, by Linguists and by Language Users.” InLanguage Usage and Language Structure, ed. byK. Boye and E. Engberg-Pedersen, 45–72. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2015 ‘Grammar and Cooperative Communication’. In: Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39), ed. byE. Dąbrowska and D. Divjak, 232–251. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑012
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-012 [Google Scholar]
  54. 2019 “Grammaticale stilistiek en stilistische grammatica – Varianten van redeweergave in het Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics24.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Vries, M. de
    2006 “Reported Direct Speech in Dutch”. Linguistics in the Netherlands23: 212–223. 10.1075/avt.23.21vri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.23.21vri [Google Scholar]
  56. Woolf, V.
    1925Mrs Dalloway. London: Hogarth Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Yoshida, W., B. Seymour, K. J. Friston, and R. J. Dolan
    2010 “Neural Mechanisms of Belief Inference During Cooperative Games.” Journal of Neuroscience30: (32): 10744–51. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5895‑09.2010
    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5895-09.2010 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zeman, S.
    2016 “Perspectivization as a Link Between Narrative Micro- and Macro-Structure.” InPerspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivizationed. byS. Zeman, and N. Igl, 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lal.21.02zem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.21.02zem [Google Scholar]
  59. Zunshine, L.
    2006Why We Read Fiction. Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2016 “The Commotion of Souls.” Substance140 (45): 2: 118–142. 10.3368/ss.45.2.118
    https://doi.org/10.3368/ss.45.2.118 [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