Cover not available
Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 16:2 (2018) ► pp.399–430

The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel

Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in English literary bestsellers and their Polish and Spanish translations

 | Zhejiang University
 | University of Social Sciences, Warsaw
This article explores direct speech involving fictive interaction, that is not functioning as an ordinary quote (e.g. “a look of ‘I told you so’”; Pascual, 2006, 2014). We specifically deal with its use as a literary strategy, in which different fictive speech constructions may serve to: (i) give access to characters’ mental worlds; (ii) show the relationships and non-verbal communication between characters; (iii) create new semantic categories; and (iv) produce such rhetorical effects as vividness or humor. Special emphasis is placed on a comparative analysis of the English fictive direct speech plus noun construction (e.g. “the ‘why bother?’ attitude”) with its translations into Polish and Spanish. We show that the construction proves a challenge to translators, since neither of these languages has an exact syntactic equivalent. This study is based on an extensive and heterogeneous database that includes 30 bestselling novels from different genres, published between 1935 and 2013.
Keywords: direct speech, fictive interaction, nominal compounds, literature, translation, rhetorical device
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Analysis: Fictive interaction as literary strategy
    • 3.1Access to characters’ mental worlds
    • 3.2Relationship and non-verbal communication between characters
    • 3.3Categorizing function
    • 3.4Humor and other rhetorical effects
  • 4.Discussion: Metaphor and metonymy in fictive speech
  • 5.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00016.pas
References (43)
References
Barnden, J. A. (1997). Consciousness and common-sense metaphors of mind. In S. O’Nuallain, P. McKevitt, & E. MacAogain (Eds.), Two sciences of mind: Readings in cognitive science and consciousness (pp. 311–340). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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., & Pascual, E. (2016). ‘Say yes to this ad’: The persuasive rhetoric of fictive interaction in marketing. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 303–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brumme, J., & Espunya, A. (Eds.). (2012). The translation of fictive dialogue. Brill: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1982). Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35–53). Ablex: Norwood.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B. (2008). The text and the story: Levels of blending in fictional narratives. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (Eds.), Mental spaces in discourse and interaction (pp. 51–78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). The language of stories: A cognitive approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dancygier, B., Lu, W. L., & Verhagen, A. (Eds.). (2016). Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (Eds.). (2012). Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Vandelanotte, L. (2009). Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In G. Brône & J. Vandaele (Eds.), Cognitive poetics: Goals, gains and gaps (pp. 319–370). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Dorst, A. (2011). Personification in discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures and communicative functions. Language and Literature, 20(2), 113–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R. (2014). The semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1994). Conversationalisation of public discourse and the authority of the consumer. In R. Keat, N. Whitely, & N. Abercrombie (Eds.), The authority of the consumer (pp. 253–268). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. [1957](1971). Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In R. Jakobson, Selected writings, ii: Word and language (pp. 130–47). The Hague: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Królak, E. (2008). Fictive interaction: Its functions and usage in discourse. PhD Dissertation, University of Warsaw.Google Scholar
(2016). A Polish nominal construction involving fictive interaction: Its scope and functions in discourse. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 266–253). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. E. (1976). An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lu, W. L., & Verhagen, A. (2016). Shifting viewpoints: How does that actually work across languages? An exercise in parallel text analysis. In B. Dancygier, W. L. Lu, & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 169–190). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, K. Y. S. (2005). ‘This is the linguist in me speaking’: Constructions to talk about the self talking. Functions of Language, 12(1), 1–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E. (2006). Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). El concepto de interacción ficticia en español: De la conversación a la gramática [The concept of fictive interaction in Spanish: From the conversation to grammar]. Dialogía: Revista de Lingüística, Literatura y Cultura, 51, 64–98.Google Scholar
Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, T. A. J. M. (2013). Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 345–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., & Sandler, S. (Eds.). (2016). The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proffer, C. R. [1969](1984). Practical criticism for students. In C. R. Proffer (Ed.), From Karamzin to Bunin: An anthology of Russian short stories (pp. 31–51). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1981). Tense variation in narrative. Language, 57(1), 45–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. (2002). Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: On the uses and evolution of so and like . Journal of Communication, 52(3), 581–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, K. (2006). How does art ‘speak’ and what does it ‘say’: Conceptual metaphor theory as a tool for understanding the artistic process. In D. E. Boyes & F. B. Cogan (Eds.), Thought tools for a new generation: Essays on thought, ideas, and the power of expression (pp. 81–89). Eugene, OR: Robert D. Clark Honors College.Google Scholar
(2009). The languages of art: How representational and abstract painters conceptualize their work in terms of language. Poetics Today, 30(3), 517–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Silent abstractions versus “Look at me” drawings: Corpus evidence that artworks’ subject matter affects their fictive speech. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 87–109). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, E. (1987). The definition of lie: An examination of the folk theories underlying a semantic prototype. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.), Cultural models in language and thought (pp. 43–66). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. [1996](2000). Fictive motion in language and ‘ception’. In Toward a cognitive semantics: Concept structuring systems (pp. 99–175). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1986). Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narrative. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 311–322). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1988). Hearing voices in conversation, fiction, and mixed genres. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding (pp. 89–113). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
[1989](2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vandelanotte, L. (2004). From representational to scopal ‘distancing indirect speech or thought’: A cline of subjectification. Text, 24(4), 547–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). ‘Where am I, lurking in what place of vantage?’: The discourse of distance in John Banville’s fiction. In B. Dancygier & J. Sanders (Eds.), Special issue of English Text Construction, 3(2), 203–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). ‘Wait till you got started’: How to submerge another’s discourse in your own. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (pp. 198–218). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vis, K., Sanders, J., & Spooren, W. (2012). Diachronic changes in subjectivity and stance: A corpus linguistic study of Dutch news texts. Discourse, Context and Media, 11, 95–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1974). The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7(3), 267–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xiang, M. (2016). Real, imaginary, or fictive?: Philosophical dialogues in an early Daoist text and its pictorial version. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (Eds.), The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction (pp. 63–86). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

PASCUAL, ESTHER & BÁRBARA MARQUETA GRACIA
2024. Viewpointed morphology: A unified account of Spanish verb-complement compounds as fictive interaction structures. Journal of Linguistics 60:2 ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Fotiou, Constantina
2023. Didn’t she say to you, “Oh my God! In Pafos?”. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) DOI logo
Alekseenko, Natalia Vadimovna
2021. Fictive Interaction Phenomenon in Social Advertising Discourse. Philology. Theory & Practice 14:6 ► pp. 1866 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Fictive questions in the Zhuangzi [Figurative Thought and Language, 18], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 october 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.