Cover not available
Part of
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 3–22

Fictive interaction and the conversation frame

An overview

ORCID logo | Zhejiang University, China
| Independent scholar, Israel
We deal with the notion of fictive interaction, namely the use of the conversation frame in order to structure cognition, discourse, and grammar (Pascual 2002, 2006b, 2014). We discuss how thought and the conceptualization of experience are partly modeled by the pattern of conversation, and present the kinds of fictive interaction on different levels: the discourse, the inter-sentential, the sentential, and intra-sentential level, down to the morpheme. We also provide a list of its defining characteristics (conversational features, non-actual and non-token interpretation, metonymy), and discuss what makes this ubiquitous phenomenon, widespread across languages, discourse genres, and sociolinguistic groups, worth studying, and what its theoretical implications are. The chapter closes with an overview of the structure and content of this volume.
Keywords: conversationalization, fictivity, intersubjectivity, metonymy, non-token reading
Published online: 1 November 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.01pas
References (66)
References
Bakhtin, M.M. [1963] (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (trans. C. Emerson). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
. [1979] (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (trans. V.W. McGee). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Baynham, M. (1996). Direct speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse? Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 61–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, L. (2008). A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces approaches to discourse and interaction (pp. 109–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2013). The communicative mind: A linguistic exploration of conceptual integration and meaning construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Bråten, S. (Ed.). (1998). Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J.S. (1983). Child’s talk. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Budwig, N., Užgiris, I.Č., & Wertsch, J.V. (Eds.). (2000). Communication: An arena of development. Stamford: Ablex.Google Scholar
Cicourel, A.V. (1974). Interviewing and memory. In C. Cherry (Ed.), Pragmatic aspects of human communication (pp. 51–82). Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Giansante, G. (2014). Conversational framing in televised political discourse: A comparison from the (2008) elections in the United States and Italy. Journal of Language and Politics, 13(2), 255–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.V. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H.H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H., & Gerrig, R.J. (1990). Quotation as demonstration. Language, 66(4), 784–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, F. (2010). Action and agency in dialogue: Passion, incarnation and ventriloquism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2012). Communication theory at the center: Ventriloquism and the communicative constitution of reality. Journal of Communication, 62(1), 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooren, F., & Sandler, S. (2014). Polyphony, ventriloquism and constitution: In dialogue with Bakhtin. Communication Theory, 24(3), 225–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulson, S., & Pascual, E. (2006). For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demeter, G. (2011). Explicit apologies in English and Romanian: A construction grammar approach. PhD dissertation, Oklahoma State University.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1994). Conversationalisation of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In R. Keat, N. Whiteley, & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), The authority of the consumer (pp. 253–268). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gallese, V., & Cuccio, V. (2015). The paradigmatic body: Embodied simulation, intersubjectivity and the bodily self. In T. Metzinger & J.M. Windt (Eds.), Open MIND (pp. 1–23). Frankfurt: MIND Group. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). From discourse to syntax: Grammar as a processing strategy. In T. Givón (Ed.), Discourse and syntax (pp. 81–112). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1993). Coherence in text, coherence in mind. Pragmatics & Cognition, 2, 171–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Ed.). (1997). Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places, Notes on the social organization of gatherings. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
. (1981). Footing. In Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1995). The negotiation of coherence within conversation. In M.A. Gernsbacher & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous speech (pp. 117–135). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1997). Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herman, V. (1999). Deictic projection and conceptual blending in epistolarity. Poetics Today, 20(3), 523–541.Google Scholar
Herring, S.C. (1991). The grammaticalization of rhetorical questions in Tamil. In E.C. Traugott, & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 253–284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jarque, M.J., & Pascual, E. (2016). Mixed viewpoints in factual and fictive discourse in Catalan Sign Language narratives. In B. Dancygier, L.Wei-lun Lu, & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the Fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 259–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. I. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. (1999). Virtual reality. Studies in Linguistic Sciences, 29(2), 77–103.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (2008). Information structure and grammaticalization. In M.J. López-Couso & E. Seoane Posse (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization 3 (pp. 207–229). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, C.N., & Thompson, S.A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In C.N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 457–489). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
Pang, K.-Y.S. (2005). ‘This is the linguist in me speaking’: Constructions for talking about the self talking. Functions of Language, 12(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E. (2002). Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual Blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
. (2006a). Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk, 26(3), 383–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2006b). Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Text for context, trial for trialogue: An ethnographic study of a fictive interaction blend. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 50–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2010). El concepto de interacción ficticia en español: De la conversación a la gramática. [Fictive interaction in Spanish: From conversation to grammar]. Dialogía, 5, 64–98.Google Scholar
Pascual, E., & Królak, E. (2015). The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in literary bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish translations. Ms. [URL]
Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, Th.A.J.M. (2013). Direct speech compounds: Evoking sociocultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 345–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., & Versluis, C. (2006). Verbale demonstratie als strategie van functionele adaptatie bij Broca-afasie: Een gevalstudie. Voortgang, 24, 169–182.Google Scholar
Rhee, S. (2004). From discourse to grammar: Grammaticalization and lexicalization of rhetorical questions in Korean. LACUS Forum, 30, 413–423.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., & Brown, P. (1976). The origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language, 52, 631–666. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandler, S. (2012). Reenactment: An embodied cognition approach to meaning and linguistic content. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 11(4), 583–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singer, S.W. (1826). Notes. In The dramatic works of William Shakespeare, Vol. 3. Chiswick: Charles Whittingham, College House.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2002). Grammars, words, and embodied meanings. Journal of Communication, 52(3), 581–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. [1996] (2000). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (Vol. 1, pp. 99–175). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy. A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: The beginning of human communication (pp. 321–347). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. (2011). What is it like to be a person who knows nothing? Defining the active intersubjective mind of a newborn human being. Infant and Child Development, 20(1), 119–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity: Confidence, confiding and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture and symbol: The emergence of language (pp. 183–229). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Voloshinov, V.N. [1929] (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language (trans. L. Matejka, & I.R. Titunik). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Voort, H. van der. (2013). Fala fictícia fossilizada: O tempo futuro em Aikanã. [Fossilised fictive quotation: Future tense in Aikanã] Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (Ciências Humanas), 8(2), 359–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. [1934] (1962). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zlatev, J., Racine, T.P., Sinha, C., & Itkonen, E. (Eds.). (2008). The shared mind: Perspectives on intersubjectivity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Igl, Natalia
2019. Chapter 6. Framing the narrative. In Experiencing Fictional Worlds [Linguistic Approaches to Literature, 32], ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Assimakopoulos, Stavros, Fabienne H. Baider & Sharon Millar
2017. Analysis of Online Comments to News Reports. In Online Hate Speech in the European Union [SpringerBriefs in Linguistics, ], ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Sandler, Sergeiy & Esther Pascual
2017. In the Beginning There Was Conversation: Fictive Direct Speech in the Hebrew Bible. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.