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: 05 November 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00016.pas
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baynham, M.
(1996) Direct speech: What’s it doing in non-narrative discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(1), 61–81. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brumme, J., & Espunya, A.
(Eds.) (2012) The translation of fictive dialogue. Brill: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E.
(Eds.) (2012) Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, R.
(2014) The semantics of free indirect discourse: How texts allow us to mind-read and eavesdrop. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. E.
(1976) An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E.
(2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. CrossrefGoogle 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
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., & Sandler, S.
(Eds.) (2016) The conversation frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1974) The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics, 7(3), 267–307. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Alekseenko, Natalia Vadimovna
2021. Fictive Interaction Phenomenon in Social Advertising Discourse. Filologičeskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki :6 ► pp. 1866 ff. 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.