Volume 16, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-9751
  • E-ISSN: 1877-976X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article explores direct speech involving , that is not functioning as an ordinary quote (e.g. “a look of ”; Pascual, 20062014). We specifically deal with its use as a literary strategy, in which different fictive speech constructions may serve to: (i) give access to characters’ mental worlds; (ii) show the relationships and non-verbal communication between characters; (iii) create new semantic categories; and (iv) produce such rhetorical effects as vividness or humor. Special emphasis is placed on a comparative analysis of the English fictive direct speech plus noun construction (e.g. “the attitude”) with its translations into Polish and Spanish. We show that the construction proves a challenge to translators, since neither of these languages has an exact syntactic equivalent. This study is based on an extensive and heterogeneous database that includes 30 bestselling novels from different genres, published between 1935 and 2013.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barnden, J. A.
    (1997) Consciousness and common-sense metaphors of mind. InS. O’Nuallain, P. McKevitt, & E. MacAogain (Eds.), Two sciences of mind: Readings in cognitive science and consciousness (pp.311–340). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aicr.9.20bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.9.20bar [Google Scholar]
  2. Baynham, M.
    (1996) Direct speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 61–81. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00074‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00074-3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Brandt, L., & Pascual, E.
    (2016) ‘Say yes to this ad’: The persuasive rhetoric of fictive interaction in marketing. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.303–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.15bra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.15bra [Google Scholar]
  4. Brumme, J., & Espunya, A.
    (Eds.) (2012) The translation of fictive dialogue. Brill: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Chafe, W. L.
    (1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. InD. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp.35–53). Ablex: Norwood.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Dancygier, B.
    (2008) The text and the story: Levels of blending in fictional narratives. InT. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp.51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.170.03dan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.170.03dan [Google Scholar]
  7. (2012) The language of stories: A cognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Dancygier, B., Lu, W. L., & Verhagen, A.
    (Eds.) (2016) Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
    (Eds.) (2012) Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L.
    (2009) Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. InG. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp.319–370). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dorst, A.
    (2011) Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures and communicative functions. Language and Literature, 20(2), 113–135. 10.1177/0963947010395522
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947010395522 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eckardt, R.
    (2014) The semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004266735
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266735 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fairclough, N.
    (1994) Conversationalisation of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. InR. Keat, N. Whitely, & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), The authority of the consumer (pp.253–268). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Grice, H. P.
    (1989) Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jakobson, R.
    [1957](1971) Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. InR. Jakobson, Selected writings, ii: Word and language (pp.130–47). The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Królak, E.
    (2008) Fictive interaction: Its functions and usage in discourse. PhD Dissertation, University of Warsaw.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2016) A Polish nominal construction involving fictive interaction: Its scope and functions in discourse. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.266–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.12kro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.12kro [Google Scholar]
  18. Longacre, R. E.
    (1976) An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lu, W. L., & Verhagen, A.
    (2016) Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. InB. Dancygier, W. L. Lu, & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp.169–190). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110365467‑008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110365467-008 [Google Scholar]
  20. Pang, K. Y. S.
    (2005) ‘This is the linguist in me speaking’: Constructions to talk about the self talking. Functions of Language, 12(1), 1–38. 10.1075/fol.12.1.02pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.12.1.02pan [Google Scholar]
  21. Pascual, E.
    (2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. 10.1515/COG.2006.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.006 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) El concepto de interacción ficticia en español: De la conversación a la gramática [The concept of fictive interaction in Spanish: From the conversation to grammar]. Dialogía: Revista de Lingüística, Literatura y Cultura, 5, 64–98.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2014) Fictive 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. Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, T. A. J. M.
    (2013) Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 345–366. 10.1515/cog‑2013‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0011 [Google Scholar]
  25. Pascual, E., & Sandler, S.
    (Eds.) (2016) The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55 [Google Scholar]
  26. Proffer, C. R.
    [1969](1984) Practical criticism for students. InC. R. Proffer (Ed.), From Karamzin to Bunin: An anthology of Russian short stories (pp.31–51). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Schiffrin, D.
    (1981) Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57(1), 45–62. 10.1353/lan.1981.0011
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1981.0011 [Google Scholar]
  28. Streeck, J.
    (2002) Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of so and like. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 581–596. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02563.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02563.x [Google Scholar]
  29. Sullivan, K.
    (2006) How does art ‘speak’ and what does it ‘say’: Conceptual metaphor theory as a tool for understanding the artistic process. InD. E. Boyes & F. B. Cogan (Eds.), Thought tools for a new generation: Essays on thought, ideas, and the power of expression (pp.81–89). Eugene, OR: Robert D. Clark Honors College.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2009) The languages of art: How representational and abstract painters conceptualize their work in terms of language. Poetics Today, 30(3), 517–560. 10.1215/03335372‑2009‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-2009-004 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2016) Silent abstractions versus “Look at me” drawings: Corpus evidence that artworks’ subject matter affects their fictive speech. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.87–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.05sul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.05sul [Google Scholar]
  32. Sweetser, E.
    (1987) The definition of lie: An examination of the folk theories underlying a semantic prototype. InD. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp.43–66). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511607660.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511607660.003 [Google Scholar]
  33. Talmy, L.
    [1996](2000) Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. InToward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (pp.99–175). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Tannen, D.
    (1986) Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. InF. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp.311–322). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110871968.311
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110871968.311 [Google Scholar]
  35. (1988) Hearing voices in conversation, fiction, and mixed genres. InD. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp.89–113). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. [1989](2007)Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Vandelanotte, L.
    (2004) From representational to scopal ‘distancing indirect speech or thought’: A cline of subjectification. Text, 24(4), 547–585. 10.1515/text.2004.24.4.547
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2004.24.4.547 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2009) Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110215373
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110215373 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2010) ‘Where am I, lurking in what place of vantage?’: The discourse of distance in John Banville’s fiction. InB. Dancygier & J. Sanders (Eds.), Special issue ofEnglish Text Construction, 3(2), 203–225. 10.1075/etc.3.2.05van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.3.2.05van [Google Scholar]
  40. (2012) ‘Wait till you got started’: How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. InB. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp.198–218). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139084727.015
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139084727.015 [Google Scholar]
  41. Vis, K., Sanders, J., & Spooren, W.
    (2012) Diachronic changes in subjectivity and stance: A corpus linguistic study of Dutch news texts. Discourse, Context and Media, 1, 95–102. 10.1016/j.dcm.2012.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1974) The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7(3), 267–307. 10.1080/08351817409370375
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817409370375 [Google Scholar]
  43. Xiang, M.
    (2016) Real, imaginary, or fictive?: Philosophical dialogues in an early Daoist text and its pictorial version. InE. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp.63–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.55.04xia
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.04xia [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