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
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 26 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18049.van
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18049.van
Abstract
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.
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
References (60)
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.
Baydina, E. 2017. “The Russian Apprehensive Construction: Syntactic Status Reassessed, Negation Vindicated”. MA Thesis Leiden University. [[URL]]
Boye, K. and P. Harder. 2007. “Complement-Taking Predicates: Usage and Linguistic Structure.” Studies in Language 311: 569–606.
Budelmann, F. and P. Easterling. 2010. “Reading Minds in Greek Tragedy.” Greece and Rome 57 (2): 289–303.
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.
Corballis, M. C. 2011. The Recursive Mind. The Origins of Human Language, Thought, and Civilization. Princeton: Princeton UP.
Dancygier, B. and E. Sweetser. 2012. Viewpoint in Language. A Multimodal Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
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.
Du Bois, John W. 2007. “The Stance Triangle.” In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction, ed. by R. Englebretson, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Duijn, M. J. van. 2016. The Lazy Mindreader. A Humanities Perspective on Mindreading and Multiple-Order Intentionality. PhD Thesis, Leiden University.
. 2016a. “Van binnenuit bekeken. Gedachtenlezen en ingebedde perspectieven in Mrs Dalloway en De maagd Marino
.” Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 1321: 383–400.
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.
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.
2008. “Mind the Gap or Why Human Aren’t Just Great Apes.” Proceedings of the British Academy 1541: 403–23.
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.
2007. “Insubordination and Its Uses.” In: Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, ed. by I. Nikolaeva, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford UP.
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.
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
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.
Leech, G., and M. Short. 2007 [1981]. Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. Second Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
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.
Mey, J. 1999. When Voices Clash. A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
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.
Nilsson, N. Z. 2012. “Peculiarities of Expressing the Apprehensive in Russian.” The Russian Verb. Oslo Studies in Language 4 (1): 53–70.
Phelan, J. 2007. “Estranging Unreliability, Bonding Unreliability, and the Ethics of “Lolita”.” Narrative 15 (2): 222–238.
Premack, D. G., and G. Woodruff. 1978. “Does the Chimpanzee Have a Theory of Mind?” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11: 515–526.
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.
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.
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.
Sperber, D. 1994. “Understanding Verbal Understanding.” In: What is Intelligence?, ed. by J. Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Sweetser, E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
2012. “Introduction: Viewpoint and Perspective in Language and Gesture, From the Ground Down.” In Dancygier and Sweetser (eds), 2012: 1–22.
Turner, M., and G. Fauconnier. 1995. “Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression.” Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 (3): 183–203.
Vandelanotte, Lieven. 2009. Speech and Thought Representation in English: A Cognitive- Functional Approach. (Topics in English Linguistics 65). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Verhagen, A. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity. Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
2019. “Grammaticale stilistiek en stilistische grammatica – Varianten van redeweergave in het Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde/Dutch Linguistics 241.
Vries, M. de. 2006. “Reported Direct Speech in Dutch”. Linguistics in the Netherlands 231: 212–223.
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.
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.
Cited by (9)
Cited by nine other publications
Homayounnia Firouzjah, Morteza, Saeed Nazari Kakvandi & Hesam Ramezanzade
Kefalidou, Sophia
2025. Irony, intersubjectivity and construal. In What makes a Figure [Figurative Thought and Language, 19], ► pp. 271 ff.
Forceville, Charles
2023. Narrating and focalizing visually and visual-verbally in comics and
graphic novels. Pragmatics & Cognition 30:1 ► pp. 180 ff.
van Schuppen, S. Linde, Kobie van Krieken, Simon A. Claassen & José Sanders
Vogels, Jorrig, Sonja Zeman, Carla Contemori, Petra Hendriks, Franziska Köder & Emar Maier
de Vries, Clarissa, Bert Oben & Geert Brône
Zeman, Sonja
Duijn, Max van & Arie Verhagen
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2025. 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.
