From representational to scopal 'distancing indirect speech or thought': A cline of subjectification

Text

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 547-585

  Vandelanotte, Lieven ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Deixis; Distancing indirect speech thought; Grammaticalization; Reported speech; Scope; Subjectification

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248700063     PISSN: 01654888     EISSN: 18607349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/text.2004.24.4.547     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Aijmer, K. (1997). I think - an English modal particle. In Modality in Germanic Languages. Historical and Comparative Perspectives, Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 99, T. Swan and O. J. Westvik (eds.), 1-47. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
2. Bakhtin, M. M. (1981 [1975]). Discourse in the novel. In The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays by M. M. Bakhtin, [trans. C. Emerson, M. Holquist], University of Texas Press Slavic Series 1, M. Holquist (ed.), 259-422. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
3. Bally, C. (1912a). Le style indirect libre en français moderne I. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 4: 549-556.
4. -(1912b). Le style indirect libre en français moderne II. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 4: 597-606.
5. -(1914a). Figures de pensée et formes linguistiques I. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 6: 405-422.
6. -(1914b). Figures de pensée et formes linguistiques II. Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 6: 456-470.
7. Banfield, A. (1982). Unspeakable Sentences. Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
8. Bickerton, D. (1967). Modes of interior monologue: A formal definition. Modern Language Quarterly 28 (2): 229-239.
9. Davidse, K. (1999). Categories of Experiential Grammar. Monographs in systemic linguistics. Nottingham: University of Nottingham. [Book version of (1991) doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven.]
10. Davies, E. C. (1979). On the Semantics of Syntax: Mood and Condition in English. London: Croom Helm.
11. Declerck, R. (1991). Tense in English. Its Structure and Use in Discourse. London: Routledge.
12. Ehrlich, S. (1990). Point of View. A Linguistic Analysis of Literary Style. London: Routledge.
13. Finegan, E. (1995). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: An introduction. In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation. Linguistic Perspectives, D. Stein and S. Wright (eds.), 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Fleischman, S. (1991). Toward a theory of tense-aspect in narrative discourse. In The Function of Tense in Texts, Proceedings of the colloquium 'The function of tense in texts', Amsterdam, 10-12 April 1990, J. Gvozdanovic and T. A. J. M. Janssen (eds.), 75-97. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
15. Fludernik, M. (1993). The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction. The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness. London: Routledge.
16. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994 [1985]). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
17. Hand, M. (1991). On saying that again. Linguistics and Philosophy 14: 349-365.
18. -(1993). Parataxis and parentheticals. Linguistics and Philosophy 16: 495-507.
19. Hengeveld, K. (1989). Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25: 127-157.
20. Hill, J. H. and Irvine, J. T. (1993). Introduction. In Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 15, J. H. Hill and J. T. Irvine (eds.), 1-23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and Relevance. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 86. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
22. Kärkkäinen, E. (2003). Epistemic Stance in English Conversation: A Description of Its Interactional Functions, with a Focus on 'I Think'. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 115. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
23. Kuno, S. (1972). Pronominalization, reflexivization, and indirect discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3 (2): 161-195.
24. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25. -(1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
26. Le, E. (2004). Active participation within written argumentation: Metadiscourse and editorialist's authority. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (4): 687-714.
27. Leech, G. N. and Short, M. H. (1981). Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. English Language Series 13. London: Longman.
28. Lehmann, C. (1985). Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile XX (3): 303-318.
29. Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
30. McGregor, W. B. (1990). A Functional Grammar of Gooniyandi. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
31. -(1997). Semiotic Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon.
32. McHale, B. (1978). Free indirect discourse: A survey of recent accounts. A Journal for Descriptive Poetics and Theory of Literature (PTL) 3: 249-287.
33. Mey, J. L. (1999). When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 115. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
34. Myers, G. (1999). Unspoken speech: Hypothetical reported discourse and the rhetoric of everyday talk. Text 19 (4): 571-590.
35. Morris, P. (ed.) (1994). The Bakhtin Reader. Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshinov. London: Arnold.
36. Noh, E.-J. (2000). Metarepresentation: A Relevance-theory Approach. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 69. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
37. Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. Human Cognitive Processing 5. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
38. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
39. Redeker, G. (1996). Free indirect discourse in newspaper reports. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996, C. Cremers and M. den Dikken (eds.), 221-232. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
40. Reinhart, T. (1975). Whose main clause? (Point of view in sentences with parentheticals). In Harvard Studies of Syntax and Semantics, Vol.1, S. Kuno (ed.), 127-171. Cambridge, MA: Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University.
41. Rosier, L. (1993). Le discours direct libre: Béquille théorique ou objet d'étude grammaticale? Revue de linguistique romane 57: 361-371.
42. Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2000). The functions of I think in political discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (1): 41-63.
43. Simpson, P. (1994). Language, Ideology and Point of View. Interface. London: Routledge.
44. Thompson, S. A. (2002). 'Object complements' and conversation: Towards a realistic account. Studies in Language 26 (1): 125-163.
45. Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. (1991a). A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume II: Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers, E. Traugott and B. Heine (eds.), 313-329. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
46. Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. (1991b). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237-251.
47. Traugott, E. and Heine, B. (eds.) (1991a). Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume I. Focus on Theoretical and Methodological Issues. Typological Studies in Language 19. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
48. Traugott, E. and Heine, B. (eds.) (1991b). Approaches to Grammaticalization. Volume II. Focus on Types of Grammatical Markers. Typological Studies in Language 19. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
49. Urmson, J. O. (1963 [1952]). Parenthetical verbs. In Philosophy and Ordinary Language, C. E. Caton (ed.), 220-240. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
50. [Originally published in Mind LXI: 480-496.]
51. Vandelanotte, L. (2000). She wanted her words to be her own. A functional approach to free indirect speech or thought. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Leuven.
52. -(2002a). Prenominal adjectives in English: Structures and ordering. Folia Linguistica XXXVI (3-4): 219-259.
53. -(2002b). But forced to qualify: Distancing speech and thought representation as a symptom of uninformedness in Larkin. Leuvense Bijdragen (Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology) 91 (3-4): 383-426.
54. -(2004). Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (3): 489-520.
55. -(forthcoming a). Tense in indirect speech or thought: Some proposed modifications. To appear in B. Hollebrandse, A. van Hout, and C. Vet (eds.) Crosslinguistic Studies on Tense, Aspect, and Modality, Cahiers Chronos. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
56. -(forthcoming b). Dependency, framing, scope? The syntagmatic structure of sentences of speech or thought representation. To appear in WORD.
57. -(submitted). Speech or thought representation and subjectification, or on the need to think twice.
58. Vanparys, J. (1996). Categories and Complements of Illocutionary Verbs in a Cognitive Perspective. Duisburg Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 26. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
59. Vološinov, V. N. (1973 [1929/1930]). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. [trans. L. Matejka and I. Titunik]. New York: Seminar Press.
60. Von Roncador, M. (1980). Gibt die Redewiedergabe Rede wieder? L.A.U.T., Series A, Paper no. 71. Trier.
61. -(1988). Zwischen direkter und indirekter Rede: Nichtwörtliche direkte Rede, erlebte Rede, logophorische Konstruktionen und Verwandtes. Linguistische Arbeiten 192. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
62. Waugh, L. R. (1995). Reported speech in journalistic discourse: The relation of function and text. Text 15 (1): 129-173.
63. Weinrich, H. (1971). Tempus: besprochene und erzählte Welt. Sprache und Literatur 16. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
64. Wischer, I. and Diewald, G. (eds.) (2002). New Reflections on Grammaticalization. Typological Studies in Language 49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.