Cover not available
Article published In:
On the Interaction of Constructions with Register and Genre
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Kiki Nikiforidou
[Constructions and Frames 7:2] 2015
► pp. 181–217

Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations

Empathetic narration as genre

| Department of English Language and Literature, University of Athens
This paper investigates two tense-based constructions in English and Greek and one complementation construction in Greek, whose import is to effect a deictic shift and allow narration to proceed from the point of view of the narrated events and a participant therein. In addition to the individual formal and discourse-pragmatic properties of the patterns at hand, I focus on properties of the embedding context, showing that these unrelated constructions impose similar formal and interpretational requirements. This, in turn, supports the statement of generalizations at the level of genre, in this case empathetic narration as a special kind of narration that departs from the default past narrative which is deictically anchored to the narrator and the conversational coordinates. While the analysis adopts a bottom-up, language-driven approach to genre, it also refutes its exhaustive equation with linguistic conventions, arguing that a Bakhtinian view of genre, which includes both linguistic and socio-cultural dimensions, is more appropriate for the data at hand.
Keywords: narration, tense, genre, complementation, viewpoint, empathy, deictic shift, English, Greek
Published online: 24 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.7.2.02nik
References (70)
Adamson, S. (1995). From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivization as processes of language change. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 195–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (Translated by Vern W. McGee). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bally, C. (1912). Le style indirect libre en francais modern. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 41, 549–56 and 597–606.Google Scholar
Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable sentences: Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (1994). Constructing experience. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1966). Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre. Language use in professional settings. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. (2007). Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosseaux, C. (2004). Translation and narration: A corpus-based study of French translations of two novels by Virginia Woolf . Unpublished PhD thesis, University College London.
Brinton, L. (1995). Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker’. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 173–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 821, 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Torres Cacoullos, R. (2009). The role of prefabs in grammaticization: How the particular and the general interact in language change. In R.L. Corrigan, E.A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language, volume 1. Distribution and historical change (pp. 187–217). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1980). The pear stories. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Christidis, A. (1981). ‘Οτι/πως - που: επιλογή δεικτών συμπληρωμάτων στα Νέα Ελληνικά [ Oti/pos –pu: complementizer selection in Modern Greek]. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα 21 (pp. 113–177). Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοι Κυριακίδη. Google Scholar
. (1986). Το μόρφημα που σαν αναφορικός δείκτης [The morpheme pu as an anaphoric marker]. Μελέτες για την Ελληνική Γλώσσα 71 (pp. 135–148). Θεσσαλονίκη: Αφοι Κυριακίδη. Google Scholar
Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary(1987 [1993]). London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Corbett, J. (2006). Genre and genre analysis. In E.K. Brown & A. Anderson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language & linguistics (pp. 26–32). Boston: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delveroudi, R., Tsamadou, I., & Vassilaki, S. (1993). Contribution à l’ étude de la modalité en Grec Moderne: Le marqueur να. Linguistique Formelle [Collection ERA 642]. Paris: Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Emanatian, M. (1997). The spatialization of judgement. In W.A. Liebert, G. Redeker, & L. Waugh (Eds.), Discourse and perspective in cognitive linguistics (pp.131–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. (1981). Pragmatics and the description of discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 143–166). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
.(1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, 61, 222–254.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (1993). The fictions of language and the languages of fiction: The linguistic representation of speech and consciousness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. (2001). New wine in old bottles? Voice, focalization and new writing. New Literary History, 32(3), 619–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J.-O. (2004). Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J-O. Őstman (Eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective (pp. 11–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2005). Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 371, 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, J., & Kolliakou, D. (1997). Events and facts: A semantics of pu and oti clauses. Greek linguistics ‘95: Proceedings of the 2nd international congress on Greek linguistics, Vol. 21 (pp. 459–470). Graz: W. Neugebauer.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haberlandt, K., Sandson, J., & Berian, C. (1980). The episode schema in story processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 191, 635–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., & Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1997). Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G.K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ji, S. (2002). Identifying episode transitions. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(9), 1257–1271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, P., & Fillmore, C.J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 751, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleris, C., & Babiniotis, G. (2005).Γραμματική της Νέας Ελληνικής (A grammar of Modern Greek). Athens: Ellinika Grammata.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, S., & Kaburaki, E. (1977). Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 8(4), 627–672.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1990). Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1): 5–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II, Descriptive application. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (2000). Grammar and conceptualization. [Cognitive Linguistics Research 14]. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2001). The English present tense. English Language and Linguistics, 51, 251–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mackridge, P. (1985). The Modern Greek language: A descriptive analysis of standard Modern Greek. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R. (1992). English text. System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Analyzing genre: Functional parameters. In F. Christie & J.R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions (pp. 3–39). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2004). Entity and event coercion in a symbolic theory of syntax. In J-O. Östman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 45–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L., & Lambrecht, K. (1996). Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language, 72(2), 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, C. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 701, 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moser, A. (1994).Ποιόν και απόψεις του ρήματος [Verbal aspect and aktionsart]. [Parousia Journal Monograph Series 30]. Athens: Parousia.Google Scholar
Newman, J., & Rice, S. (2006). Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics. Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 225–260). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nicholas, N. (1999). The story of pu. The grammaticalization in space and time of a Modern Greek complementizer . Unpublished Ph. D. thesis. The University of Melbourne.
Nikiforidou, K. (2006). Subjective construal and factual interpretation in sentential complements. In A. Athanasiadou, B. Cornillie, & C. Canakis (Eds.), Subjectification: Various paths to subjectivity (pp. 347–374). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
.(2010). Viewpoint and construction grammar: The case of past + now . Language and Literature, 19(3), 265–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
.(2011). Grammar and discourse: A constructional approach to discourse-based conventionality. [Parousia Journal Monograph Series 81]. Athens: Parousia.Google Scholar
. (2012). The constructional underpinnings of viewpoint blends: The past + now in language and literature. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language. A multimodal perspective (pp. 177–197). Cambridge: Cambridge University press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, K., Marmaridou, S., & Mikros, G. (2014). What’s in a dialogic construction? A constructional approach to polysemy and the grammar of challenge. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(4), 655–699. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oshima, D.Y. (2007). Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: A typological approach. Linguistics, 451, 727–763. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, J-O. (2005). Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In J-O. Őstman & M. Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars. Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 121–144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulou, I. (1994). The grammaticalization of the Modern Greek sentential complementation system. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Essex.
Short, M. (1996). Exploring the language of poems, plays, and prose. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Steen, F., & Turner, M. (2013). Multimodal construction grammar. In M. Borkent, B. Dancygier, & J. Hinnell (Eds.), Language and the creative mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2011). Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In M. Callies, W. Keller, & A. Lohffer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (2014). Audiovisual constructions. Plenary talk, 8th International Conference on Construction Grammar (ICCG8) , Osnabrück University, Germany.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1981). Episodes as units of discourse analysis. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 177–195). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Varlokosta, S. (1994). Factive complements in Modern Greek. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 21, 238–258.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D.P. (1992). Interjections as deictics. Journal of Pragmatics, 18(2-3), 119–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1995). Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In D. Stein & S. Wright (Eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives (pp. 151–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Matsumoto, Yoshiko & Shoichi Iwasaki
2022. Multiplicity in grammar: Modes, genres and Speaker's knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 198 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Fischer, Kerstin & Morgan Aarestrup
2021. Relationships between construction grammar(s) and genre: Evidence from an analysis of Instagram posts. Journal of Pragmatics 183 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Matsumoto, Yoshiko
2021. Flexibility and fluidity of grammar: Grammatical constructions in discourse and sociocultural context. Journal of Pragmatics 172 ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Dancygier, Barbara
2019. Proximal and distal deictics and the construal of narrative time . Cognitive Linguistics 30:2 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2018. Genre and constructional analysis. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3 ► pp. 543 ff. DOI logo
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2021. Grammatical variability and the grammar of genre: Constructions, conventionality, and motivation in ‘stage directions’. Journal of Pragmatics 173 ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Vergaro, Carla
2018. A cognitive framework for understanding genre. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3 ► pp. 430 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.