Article published in:
Irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence: Discourse-oriented and theoretical approaches
Edited by Caroline Gentens, María Sol Sansiñena, Stef Spronck and An Van linden
[Pragmatics 29:2] 2019
► pp. 198225
Apperly, I.
2011Mindreaders. The Cognitive Basis for Theory of Mind. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bal, M.
2009Narratology. Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. Toronto: Toronto UP.Google Scholar
Banfield, A.
1978 “Where Epistemology, Style, and Grammer Meet Literary History: The Development of Represented Speech and Thought.” New Literary History 9 (3): 415–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baydina, E.
2017 “The Russian Apprehensive Construction: Syntactic Status Reassessed, Negation Vindicated”. MA Thesis Leiden University. [https://​openaccess​.leidenuniv​.nl​/handle​/1887​/46284]
Bennett, J.
1976Linguistic Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, B.
1991Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. and P. Harder
2007 “Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language 311: 569–606. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Budelmann, F. and P. Easterling
2010 “Reading Minds in Greek Tragedy.” Greece and Rome 57 (2): 289–303. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cefalu, P.
2013 “The Burdens of Mind Reading in Shakespeare’s Othello: A Cognitive and Psychoanalytic Approach to Iago’s Theory of Mind.” Shakespeare Quarterly 64 (3): 265–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.
1996Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corballis, M. C.
2011The Recursive Mind. The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B.
2012The Language of Stories. A Cognitive Approach. New York: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser
2012Viewpoint in Language. A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., W. Lu, and A. Verhagen
2016Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning. Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities. Cognitive Linguistics Research [CLR] 55. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C.
1987The Intentional Stance. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W.
2007 “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by R. Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duijn, M. J. van
2016The Lazy Mindreader. A Humanities Perspective on Mindreading and Multiple-Order Intentionality. PhD Thesis, Leiden University.Google Scholar
2016a “Van binnenuit bekeken. Gedachtenlezen en ingebedde perspectieven in Mrs Dalloway en De maagd Marino .” Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 1321: 383–400.Google Scholar
Duijn, M. J. van, I. Sluiter, and A. Verhagen
2015 “When Narrative Takes Over: The Representation of Embedded Mindstates in Shakespeare’s Othello’. Language and Literature 24: (2): 148–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duijn, M. J. van and A. Verhagen
In press. “Beyond Triadic Communication: a Three-dimensional Conceptual Space for Modeling Intersubjectivity”. Pragmatics & Cognition.
Dunbar, R. I. M.
2005 “Why Are Good Writers So Rare? An Evolutionary Perspective on Literature.” J Cult Evol Psychol 31: 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Mind the Gap or Why Human Aren’t Just Great Apes.” Proceedings of the British Academy 1541: 403–23.Google Scholar
Evans, N.
2006 “View With a View: Towards a Typology of Multiple Perspective Constructions.” In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. by R. T. Cover, and Y. Kim, 93–120. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
2007 “Insubordination and Its Uses.” In: Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, ed. by I. Nikolaeva, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M.
1993The Fiction of Language and the Languages of Fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R.
2010 “Multiple Negation in English and Other Languages.” In The Expression of Negation, ed. by L. R. Horn, 111–148. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1917Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1990Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Launay, J., E. Pearce, R. Wlodarski, M. J. van Duijn, J. Carney, and R. I. M. Dunbar
2015 “Higher-Order Mentalising and Executive Functioning.” Psychology and Individual Differences 861: 6–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., and M. Short
2007 [1981]Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. Second Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, František
1995 “Apprehensional Epistemics”. In Modality in Grammar and Discourse, ed. by J. Bybee, and S. Fleischman, 293–327. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mey, J.
1999When Voices Clash. A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nabokov, V.
1997 [1959]Lolita. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J.
2010 “What Conversational English Tells Us About the Nature of Grammar: A Critique of Thompson’s Analysis of Object Complements.” In Language Usage and Language Structure, ed. by K. Boye and E. Engberg-Pedersen, 3–43. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nilsson, N. Z.
2012 “Peculiarities of Expressing the Apprehensive in Russian.” The Russian Verb. Oslo Studies in Language 4 (1): 53–70.Google Scholar
Palmer, A.
2004Fictional Minds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Phelan, J.
2007 “Estranging Unreliability, Bonding Unreliability, and the Ethics of “Lolita”.” Narrative 15 (2): 222–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Premack, D. G., and G. Woodruff
1978 “Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11: 515–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schelfhout, C.
2000 “Corpus-Based Analysis of Parenthetical Reporting Clauses.” In Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 1998; Selected Papers from the Ninth CLIN Meeting, ed. by F. I. Van Eynde, I. Schuurman, and N. Schelkens, 147–59. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. C.
2015Speaking Our Minds. Why Human Communication is Different and How Language Evolved to Make it Special. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shultz, S. and R. I. M. Dunbar
2007 “The Evolution of the Social Brain: Anthropoid Primates Contrast with Other Vertebrates”. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London 274B1: 2429–2436. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D.
1994 “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In: What is Intelligence?, ed. by J. Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Introduction: Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture, From the Ground Down.” In Dancygier and Sweetser (eds) 2012: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toolan, M.
1998Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2008Origins of Human Communication. Boston: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, M., and G. Fauconnier
1995 “Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (3): 183–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2009Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive- Functional Approach. (Topics in English Linguistics 65). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
2005Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “Usage, Structure, Scientific Explanation, and the Role of Abstraction, by Linguists and by Language Users.” In Language Usage and Language Structure, ed. by K. Boye and E. Engberg-Pedersen, 45–72. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015 ‘Grammar and Cooperative Communication’. In: Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 39), ed. by E. Dąbrowska and D. Divjak, 232–251. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2019 “Grammaticale stilistiek en stilistische grammatica – Varianten van redeweergave in het Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics 241.Google Scholar
Vries, M. de
2006 “Reported Direct Speech in Dutch”. Linguistics in the Netherlands 231: 212–223. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, V.
1925Mrs Dalloway. London: Hogarth Press.Google Scholar
Yoshida, W., B. Seymour, K. J. Friston, and R. J. Dolan
2010 “Neural Mechanisms of Belief Inference During Cooperative Games.” Journal of Neuroscience 30: (32): 10744–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zeman, S.
2016 “Perspectivization as a Link Between Narrative Micro- and Macro-Structure.” In Perspectives on Narrativity and Narrative Perspectivization ed. by S. Zeman, and N. Igl, 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zunshine, L.
2006Why We Read Fiction. Theory of Mind and the Novel. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
2016 “The Commotion of Souls.” Substance 140 (45): 21: 118–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar


Recursive embedding of viewpoints, irregularity, and the role for a flexible framework
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

de Vries, Clarissa, Bert Oben & Geert Brône
2021. Exploring the role of the body in communicating ironic stance. Languages and Modalities 1  pp. 65 ff. Crossref logo
Duijn, Max van & Arie Verhagen
2018. Beyond triadic communication. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:2  pp. 384 ff. Crossref logo
Zeman, Sonja
2020. Parameters of Narrative Perspectivization: The Narrator. Open Library of Humanities 6:2 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. 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.