Article published in:
Pragmatics
Vol. 12:3 (2002) ► pp. 273–295

Deictic motion and the adoption of perspective in Greek

In this paper we examine the semantics-pragmatics of the deictic motion verb erxome ‘come’ in central and extended uses. We argue that a detailed language-specific analysis of erxome and its systemic counterpart pijeno ‘go’ is necessary, since even at the level of basic appropriateness conditions, there are significant differences from other languages. Based on extensive corpus data, we further argue that in third-person discourse erxome is a conventional means of adopting perspective. In particular, we show that the factors which are relevant to the speaker’s/narrator’s choice to identify with a particular point of view are amenable to a principled description which relies both on discoursal parameters and text-sensitive generalizations. Motivating the adoption-of-perspective uses is a subjectification shift whereby the speaker’s presence at the goal of motion becomes increasingly more implicit. Our results, therefore, add to the study of deixis in natural languages, point to the existence of generalizations in the complex factors that underlie construal and highlight some of the cognitive mechanisms involved in meaning shifts.
Keywords: Greek, Perspective, Text-type, Place-person-social deixis, Subjectification, Deictic motion verbs
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 01 September 2002
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.12.3.02ant

Full-text

Deictic motion and the adoption of perspective in Greek
References

References

Adamson, Sylvia
(1995) From empathetic deixis to empathetic narrative: Stylisation and (de)subjectivisation as processes of language change. In D. Stein, and S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195-224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bella, Spyridoula
(2001) Η δείξη στα Νέα Ελληνικά. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Athens.
Brinton, Laurel
(1995) Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the subjectivity of the non-speaker. In D. Stein, and S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151-172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
(1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Christidis, Anastasios Ph
(1991) On the categorical status of particles: The case for holophrasis. Lingua 82: 53-82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
(1966) Deictic categories in the semantics of 'come'. Foundations of Language 2: 219-227.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1975) The Santa Cruz lectures on deixis (1971) . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
(1982) Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. In R.J. Jarvella, and W. Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related subjects. New York: Wiley, pp. 31-59.Google Scholar
(1983) How to know whether you are coming or going. In G. Rauh (ed.), Essays on deixis. Tubingen: Narr, pp. 219-227.Google Scholar
Gathercole, Virginia
(1977) A study of the comings and goings ofthe speakers of four languages: Spanish, Japanese, English and Turkish. Kansas working papers in linguistics, Vol. 2: 61-94.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff
(1997) The semantics of coming and going. Pragmatics 7.2: 147-162.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1964) Comparison and translation. In M.A.K. Halliday, M. Mcintosh, and P. Stevens (eds.), The linguistic sciences and language teaching. London and New York: Longman.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1990) Subjectification. Cognitive Linguistics 1-1: 5-38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol.2, Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Universals of construal. In J. Guentez, B. Kaiser, and C. Zoll (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 447-463.Google Scholar
(1997) Consciousness, construal and subjectivity. In M.I. Stamenov (ed.), Language structure, discourse and the access to consciousness. Advances in Consciousness Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 49-75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12-2: 143-188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
(1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John
(1977) Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Marmaridou, Sophia A.
(2000) Pragmatic meaning and cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Crossref  BoPGoogle Scholar
Miller, George A., and Philip Johnson-Laird
(1976) Language and perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoP CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana
(2001) Discourse analysis: Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pander Maat, Henk, and Ted Sanders
(2001) Subjectivity in causal connectives: An empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics 12-3: 247-273.Google Scholar
Rubba, Jo
(1996) Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In E. Sweetser, and G. Fauconnier (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar . Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 227-261.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve, and Gilles Fauconnier
(1996) Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In E. Sweetser, and G. Fauconnier (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammar. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1-28.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Veloudis, Giorgos
(1977) Διήγησις Αλεξάνδρου του Μακδόνος (Narration of Alexander the Macedonian). Athens: Modern Greek Library.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef
(1999) Understanding pragmatics. London, New York, Sydney, Auckland: Edward Arnold.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, David P., and Deborah Hill
(1995) When "go" means "come": Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics 6-2/3: 209-259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wright, Susan
(1995) Subjectivity and experiential syntax. In D. Stein, and S. Wright (eds.), Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 151-172. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

No author info given
2018.  In The Poetics of Time – Metaphors and Blends in Language and Literature [Figurative Thought and Language, 3], Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 2021. 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.