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



In this introduction, we set out the central themes of the special issue. It concentrates on imperfect function-form mappings, and discusses several cases in which specific perspectival meanings are not fully predictable on the basis of a perspectivizing grammatical construction alone. We distinguish two kinds of form-function mismatches: (1) perspective-persistent phenomena, i.e. grammatically signaled deictic and/or cognitive perspective shifts which are not realized in interpretation, and (2) irregular perspective shifts, which involve either grammatically un(der)specified shifts or grammatically signaled shifts that are interpreted as mixing multiple sources of deictic and/or cognitive perspective (‘multiple-perspective constructions’). We briefly discuss and contextualize each of the contributions, and highlight their central findings.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Adelaar, Willem F. H.
    1990 “The Role of Quotations in Andean Discourse.” InUnity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on His 50th Birthday, ed. byHarm Pinkster, and Inge Genee, 1–12. Dordrecht and Providence, RI: Foris publications. 10.1515/9783110847420.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110847420.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Banfield, Ann
    1982Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Cornillie, Bert, and Barbara De Cock
    (eds) 2015Hearer-Orientation in Spoken Genres. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. De Smet, Hendrik, and Jean-Christophe Verstraete
    2006 “Coming to Terms with Subjectivity.” Cognitive Linguistics17: 365–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dancygier, Barbara, Wei-Lun Lu, and Arie Verhagen
    2016Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning. Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467 [Google Scholar]
  6. Evans, Nick
    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. byRebecca T. Cover, and Yuni Kim, 93–120. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Evans, Nick, Henrik Bergqvist, and Lila San Roque
    2018 “The Grammar of Engagement I: Framework and Initial Exemplification.” Language and Cognition10 (1): 110–140. 10.1017/langcog.2017.21
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2017.21 [Google Scholar]
  8. Everett, Daniel
    2008 “Wari’ Intentional State Constructions.” InInvestigations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics Interface, ed. byRobert D. van Valin, 381–409. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.105.27eve
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.105.27eve [Google Scholar]
  9. Gentens, Caroline
    2016 “The Factive-Reported Distinction in English. Representational and Interpersonal Semantics.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leuven.
  10. Gentens, Caroline, and Kristin Davidse
    2017 “Reconceptualizing Factivity: a New View on the Semantics of Factive Constructions.” Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics35 (6): 65–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Ghesquière, Lobke, Lot Brems, and Freek van de Velde
    (eds) 2014Intersubjectivity and Intersubjectification in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Güldemann, Tom
    2008Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110211450
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110211450 [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 2nd ed.London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hinterwimmer, Stefan, and Petra B. Schumacher
    (eds) 2017 Special Issue on Perspective Taking. Glossa (2) 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Konnerth, Linda
    2016 “Speech-act Participant Perspectives in Quotative Constructions of Monsang.” Paper presented atSLE49, University of Naples, 31 August – 3 September 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. . Subm. “Recycling through Perspective Persistence in Monsang (Trans-Himalayan): Reconstructing the Desiderative from a Reported Intentionality Construction.” Functions of Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Levinson, Stephen
    2006 “Deixis.” InThe Handbook of Pragmatics, ed. byLaurence R. Horn and Gregory L. Ward, 97–120. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756959.ch5
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch5 [Google Scholar]
  19. McGregor, William B.
    1994 “The Grammar of Reported Speech and Thought in Gooniyandi.” Australian Journal of Linguistics14 (1): 63–92. 10.1080/07268609408599502
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268609408599502 [Google Scholar]
  20. 2007 “A Desiderative Complement Construction in Warrwa.” InLanguage Description, History and Development: Linguistic Indulgence in Memory of Terry Crowley, ed. byJeff Siegel, John Lynch, and Diana Eades, 27–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cll.30.08mcg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cll.30.08mcg [Google Scholar]
  21. Munro, Robert, Rainer Ludwig, Uli Sauerland, and David W. Fleck
    2012 “Reported Speech in Matses: Perspective Persistence and Evidential Narratives.” International Journal of American Linguistics78 (1): 41–75. 10.1086/662637
    https://doi.org/10.1086/662637 [Google Scholar]
  22. Nunberg, Geoffrey
    1993 “Indexicality and Deixis.” Linguistics and Philosophy16:1–43. 10.1007/BF00984721
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00984721 [Google Scholar]
  23. 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]
  24. Reinhart, Tanya
    1975 “Whose Main Clause? Point of View in Sentences with Parentheticals.” InHarvard Studies of Syntax and Semantics: Vol. 1, ed. bySusumu Kuno, 127–171. Cambridge, MA: Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Rumsey, Alan
    2001 “On the Syntax and Semantics of Trying.” InForty Years on: Ken Hale and Australian Languages, ed. byJane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Peter Austin, and Barry Alpher, 353–63. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. San Roque, Lila, and Henrik Bergqvist
    (eds) 2015 Special Issue on Epistemic Marking in Typological Perspective. STUF – Language Typology and Universals.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. San Roque, Lila, Floyd, Simeon, and Elisabeth Norcliffe
    2017 “Evidentiality and Interrogativity.” Lingua186–187: 120–143. 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Silverstein, Michael
    1976 “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description.” InMeaning in Anthropology, ed. byKeith H. Basso, and Henry A. Selby, 11–55. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Spronck, Stef
    2012 “Minds Divided, Speaker Attitudes in Quotatives.” InQuotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, ed. byIsabelle Buchstaller, and Ingrid van Alphen, 71–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.15.07spr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.15.07spr [Google Scholar]
  30. 2015 “Reported Speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and Social Cognition in a Language of the Kimberley Region, Western Australia.” Ph.D. dissertation, Canberra: Australian National University.
  31. 2017 “Defenestration: Deconstructing the Frame-in Relation in Ungarinyin.” Journal of Pragmatics114: 104–133. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.03.016 [Google Scholar]
  32. Spronck, Stef, An Van linden, Caroline Gentens, and Maria S. Sansiñena
    eds. Subm.Notes from the Field on Perspective-Indexing Constructions: Irregular Shifts and Perspective Persistence. Functions of Language.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Steever, Sanford B.
    2002 “Direct and Indirect Discourse in Tamil.” InReported Discourse: A Meeting Ground for Different Linguistic Domains, ed. byTom Güldemann, and Manfred von Roncador, 91–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.52.07ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.52.07ste [Google Scholar]
  34. Vandelanotte, Lieven
    2004a “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]
  35. 2004b “Deixis and Grounding in Speech and Thought Representation.” Journal of Pragmatics36: 489–520. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2009Speech and Thought Representation in English. A Cognitive-Functional Perspective. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vanparys, Johan
    1996Categories and Complements of Illocutionary Verbs in a Cognitive Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Verhagen, Arie
    2005Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2007Rethinking the Coordinate-Subordinate Dichotomy. Interpersonal Grammar and the Analysis of Adverbial Clauses in English. Berlin: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110918199
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110918199 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2008 “The Status of Purpose, Reason and Intended Endpoint in the Typology of Complex Sentences: Implications for Layered Models of Clause Structure.” Linguistics46: 757–788. 10.1515/LING.2008.025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.025 [Google Scholar]
  41. von Roncador, Manfred
    1980 “Gibt die Redewiedergabe Rede wieder?” L.A.U.T. (Linguistic Agency University of Trier), Series A: Paper no. 71.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 1988Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede: Nichtwörtliche direkte Rede, erlebte Rede, logophorische Konstruktionen und Verwandtes. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111678764
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111678764 [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