The interactive dimension of mental construal an the participant-setting distinction in the expression of stance

  • Katherine Hrisonopulo Saint-Petersburg State University of Culture

Résumé

This paper presents an account of the phenomenon of mental construal manifested in English expressions of stance through the distinction of clauses that are headed by subjects associated with two conceptual archetypes: participant (P) invoked by the first-person pronoun (‘I am certain that’) and abstract setting (S) conveyed by anticipatory ‘it’ (‘It is certain that’). With recourse to the main theoretical points on the anchoring of linguistic meaning in the acts of mental construal and interactive coordination, the conducted analysis focuses on a corpus of about 350 examples that represent narrative and dialogic discourse in English-language fiction. It shown that the choice of stance expressions with P- and S-subjects is motivated by the distinctions that arise in discourse between actual and mentally represented types of reality, the contrast between reference-making and viewing as types of cognitive operations and the associated narrative and dialogic strategies.

Biographie de l'auteur

Katherine Hrisonopulo, Saint-Petersburg State University of Culture
PhD in English linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics at the Faculty of World Culture

Références

BERMAN, Ruth A. (2004). Introduction: developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, p. 105–124.

BIBER, Douglas & FINEGAN, Edward. (1989). Styles of stance in English: lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9 (1), p. 93–124.

BIBER, Douglas, JOHANSSON, Stig, LEECH, Geoffrey, CONRAD, Susan & FINEGAN, Edward. (2004). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

BOTTINEAU, Didier. (2010). Language and enaction. In J. Stewart J., O. Gappenne, E. Di Paolo (eds.). Enaction: toward a new paradigm of cognitive science (p. 267 – 306). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

CAMBRIDGE DICTIONARY ONLINE. Available online at the website <http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/> (accessed August 30th , 2016).

DU MAURIER, Daphne. (2008). The rendezvous and other stories. Great Britain: Virago Press.

GARROD, Simon & PICKERING, Martin J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, p. 8 – 11.

GARROD, Simon & PICKERING, Martin. (2013). Interactive alignment and prediction in dialogue. In I. Wachsmuth, J. de Ruiter , P. Jaecks & S. Kopp (eds.). Alignment in communication: towards a new theory of communication (p. 193 – 203). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

HYLAND, Ken. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), p. 173–192.

HYLAND, Ken & TSE, Polly. (2005). Evaluative ‘that’ constructions: signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language, 12 (1), p. 39–63.

KÄRKÄINEN, Elise. (2003). Epistemic stance in English conversation: a description of its interactional functions, with a focus on ‘I think’. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

KÄRKÄINEN, Elise. (2006). Stancetaking in conversation: from subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text and Talk, 26 (6), p. 699–731.

KÄRKÄINEN, Elise. (2007). The role of ‘I guess’ in conversational stancetaking. In R. Englebretson (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (p. 183 – 219). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

KEISANEN, Tiina. (2007). Stancetaking as an interactional activity: challenging the prior speaker. In R. Englebretson (ed.). Stancetaking in discourse: subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (p. 253 – 282). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

KUBRYAKOVA, Elena S. (1986). Nominativnyi aspekt rechevoi deyatel’nosti [The designating aspect of speech activity]. Moscow: Nauka.

LANGACKER, Ronald W. (1987). Grammatical ramifications of the setting / participant distinction. In: Proceedings of the 13th BLS Annual Meeting,13, p. 383 – 394.

LANGACKER, Ronald W. (2000a). Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

LANGACKER, Ronald W. (2000b). Why a mind is necessary: conceptualization, grammar and linguistic semantics. In L. Albertazzi (ed.). Meaning and cognition: a multidisciplinary approach (p. 25 – 38). - Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

LANGACKER, Ronald W. (2011). On the subject of impersonals. In: M. Brdar, S. Th. Gries, M. Ž. Fuchs (eds.). Cognitive linguistics: convergence and expansion (p. 179 – 217). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

LE CARRÉ, John. (2000). The spy who came in from the cold. Great Britain: Coronet Books.

LEONTIEV, Alexei A. (1975). The heuristic principle in the perception, emergence, and assimilation of speech. In Eric H. Lenneberg Eric H. & Elizabeth Lenneberg (eds.). Foundations of language development: a multidisciplinary approach (p. 43 – 58). Paris: The UNESCO Press.

LEONTIEV, Alexei A. (1981). Sign and activity. In J.W. Wertsch (ed.). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (p. 241 – 255). New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., Publisher.

LEONTIEV, Alexei A. (2006). Psycholinguistic units and speech generation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 44 (4), p. 7 – 88.

SIDOROV, Evgeny V. (2009). Ontologiya diskursa [The ontology of discourse]. 2nd ed. Moscow: Librokom.

SIDOROV, Evgeny V. (2011). Poryadok teksta [The order of text]. - Moscow: Russian State Social University.

STEWART, John, GAPENNE, Olivier & DI PAOLO, Ezequiel A. (eds.). (2010). Enaction: toward a new paradigm of cognitive science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

WILSON, Colin. (2000). The mind parasites. Moscow: Manager.

Publiée
2017-11-20