Cover not available
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. 198–225

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

ORCID logo | Leiden University
| Leiden University

This paper discusses several conventional perspective operators at the lexical, grammatical, and narrative levels. When combined with each other and with particular contexts, these operators can amount to unexpected viewpoints arrangements. Traditional conceptualisations in terms of viewpoint embedding and the regular shifting from one viewpoint to the other are argued to be insufficient for describing these arrangements in all their nuances and details.

We present an analysis of three cases in which viewpoints of speaker, addressee, and third parties are mutually coordinated: (i) global and local perspective structure in Nabokov’s novel Lolita, (ii) postposed reporting constructions in Dutch, and (iii) the Russian apprehensive construction, which has a seemingly redundant negation marker in the subordinate clause. For each of these three cases, we discuss how traditional conceptualisations fall short. We discuss an alternative model of viewpoint construction which allows for the conceptual juxtaposition and mixing of different and simultaneously activated viewpoints.

Keywords: viewpoint embedding, recursive embedding, speech and thought representation, Nabokov, apprehensive construction
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction and background
  • 2.Coordinating perspectives
    • 2.1A three-dimensional conceptual model
    • 2.2Viewpoint embedding: Communicative and cognitive aspects
  • 3.A literary case: Nabokov’s Lolita
    • 3.1The thoughtscape
    • 3.2Conventional patterns, unpredictable viewpoint structure
  • 4.Multiple perspectives in grammar
    • 4.1Citation and inquit constructions in Dutch
    • 4.2The Russian apprehensive construction
  • 5.Conclusion: The role for a flexible framework
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 26 March 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18049.van
References
Apperly, I.
2011 Mindreaders. The Cognitive Basis for Theory of Mind. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bal, M.
2009 Narratology. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baydina, E.
2017 “The Russian Apprehensive Construction: Syntactic Status Reassessed, Negation Vindicated”. MA Thesis Leiden University. [[URL]]
Bennett, J.
1976 Linguistic Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, B.
1991 Vladimir Nabokov: The American Years. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K. and P. Harder
2007 “Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language 311: 569–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budelmann, F. and P. Easterling
2010 “Reading Minds in Greek Tragedy.” Greece and Rome 57 (2): 289–303. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H.
1996 Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corballis, M. C.
2011 The Recursive Mind. The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization. Princeton: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B.
2012 The Language of Stories. A Cognitive Approach. New York: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser
2012 Viewpoint in Language. A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., W. Lu, and A. Verhagen
2016 Viewpoint 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C.
1987 The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duijn, M. J. van
2016 The 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.
1993 The Fiction of Language and the Languages of Fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P.
1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 66 (3): 377–388. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1917 Negation in English and Other Languages. Copenhagen: Host.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1990 Concept, Image, Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mey, J.
1999 When Voices Clash. A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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.
2004 Fictional 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Premack, D. G., and G. Woodruff
1978 “Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11: 515–526. DOI logoGoogle 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.
2015 Speaking 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D.
1994 “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In: What is Intelligence?, ed. by J. Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
1990 From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Introduction: Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture, From the Ground Down.” In Dancygier and Sweetser (eds) 2012: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toolan, M.
1998 Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2008 Origins of Human Communication. Boston: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M., and G. Fauconnier
1995 “Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (3): 183–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandelanotte, Lieven
2009 Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive- Functional Approach. (Topics in English Linguistics 65). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, A.
2005 Constructions 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woolf, V.
1925 Mrs 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zunshine, L.
2006 Why 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 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. DOI logo
Duijn, Max van & Arie Verhagen
2018. Beyond triadic communication. Pragmatics & Cognition 25:2 ► pp. 384 ff. DOI logo
Plaat, Aske
2022. Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning. In Deep Reinforcement Learning, ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Zeman, Sonja
2020. Parameters of Narrative Perspectivization: The Narrator. Open Library of Humanities 6:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 march 2023. 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.