1932

Abstract

Languages offer various ways to present what someone said, thought, imagined, felt, and so on from their perspective. The prototypical example of a perspective-shifting device is direct quotation. In this review we define perspective shift in terms of indexical shift: A direct quotation like “Selena said, ‘Oh, I don't know.’” involves perspective shift because the first-person indexical ‘I’ refers to Selena, not to the actual speaker. We then discuss a variety of noncanonical modality-specific perspective-shifting devices: role shift in sign language, quotatives in spoken language, free indirect discourse in written language, and point-of-view shift in visual language. We show that these devices permit complex mixed forms of perspective shift which may involve nonlinguistic gestural as well as visual components.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-021042
2022-01-14
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/8/1/annurev-linguistics-031120-021042.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-021042&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrusán M. 2020. The spectrum of perspective shift: protagonist projection versus free indirect discourse. Linguist. Philos. 44:839–73
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abrusán M 2021. Computing perspective shift in narratives. The Language of Fiction E Maier, A Stokke Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Abusch D 2020. Possible-worlds semantics for pictures. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Semantics D Gutzmann, L Matthewson, C Meier, H Rullmann, TE Zimmermann 1–28 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Abusch D, Rooth M 2017. The formal semantics of free perception in pictorial narratives. Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium A Cremers, T van Gessel, F Roelofsen 85–95 Amsterdam: Univ. Amsterdam
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anand P, Nevins A 2004. Shifty operators in changing contexts. Proceedings of the 14th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 14)20–37 Washington, DC: Am. Linguist. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anand P, Toosarvandani M. 2018. No explanation for the historical present: temporal sequencing and discourse. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 22 1 U Sauerland, S Solt 73–90 Berlin: ZAS
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Asher N, Lascarides A. 2003. Logics of Conversation Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Banfield A. 1982. Unspeakable Sentences: Narration and Representation in the Language of Fiction London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bimpikou S. 2020. Who perceives? Who thinks? Anchoring free reports of perception and thought in narratives. Open Libr. Humanit. 6:27
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bimpikou S, Maier E, Hendriks P 2021. The discourse structure of free indirect discourse. Linguistics in the Netherlands M Dingemanse, E van Lier, J Vogels, pp. 21–39 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brendel E, Meibauer J, Steinbach M 2011. Exploring the meaning of quotation. Quotation and Meaning E Brendel, J Meibauer, M Steinbach 1–33 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Brinton L. 1980. Represented perception—a study in narrative style. Poetics 9:4363–81
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Clark HH, Gerrig RJ. 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66:4764–805
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cohn N. 2013. The Visual Language of Comics: Introduction to the Structure and Cognition of Sequential Images London: Bloomsbury
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cumming S 2021. Narrative and point-of-view. The Language of Fiction E Maier, A Stokke Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cumming S, Greenberg G, Kaiser E, Kelly R 2021. Showing seeing in film. Ergo 7. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.1124
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  17. Cumming S, Greenberg G, Kelly R. 2017. Conventions of viewpoint coherence in film. Philos. Imprint 17:11–29
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Currie G. 1995. Unreliability refigured: narrative in literature and film. J. Aesthet. Art Crit. 53:119–29
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Davidson D 1969. The individuation of events. Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel N Resher 216–34 Dordrecht, Neth: Reidel
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Davidson D. 1979. Quotation. Theory Decis. 11:127–40
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Davidson K. 2015. Quotation, demonstration, and iconicity. Linguist. Philos. 38:6477–520
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Eagle D. 2012. Eliza and the Blue Rose Bloomington, IN: Xlibris
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Ebert C, Ebert C, Hörnig R 2020. Demonstratives as dimension shifters. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 24 M Franke, N Kompa, M Liu, JL Mueller, J Schwab 161–78 Osnabrück, Ger: Univ. Osnabrück
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Eckardt R. 2014. The Semantics of Free Indirect Discourse. How Texts Allow Us to Mind-Read and Eavesdrop Leiden, Neth: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Engberg-Pedersen E 1995. Point of view expressed through shifters. Language, Gesture, and Space K Emmorey, J Reilly 133–54 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Evans N 2012. Some problems in the typology of quotation: a canonical approach. Canonical Morphology and Syntax D Brown, M Chumakina, GG Corbett 66–98 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Fincher D dir 1999. Fight Club Los Angeles, CA: Paramount
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Finnegan R. 2013. Why Do We Quote? The Culture and History of Quotation Cambridge, UK: Open Book
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fludernik M. 1995. The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction: The Linguistic Representation of Speech and Consciousness London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Genette G. 1980. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Greenberg G. 2013. Beyond resemblance. Philos. Rev. 122:2215–87
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Gutzmann D, Stei E. 2011. How quotation marks what people do with words. J. Pragmat. 43:102650–63
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Harris J, Potts C 2010. Perspective-shifting with appositives and expressives. Linguist. Philos. 32:6523–52
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Herrmann A, Pendzich NK 2018. Between narrator and protagonist in fables of German Sign Language. Linguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages A Hübl, M Steinbach 275–308 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Herrmann A, Steinbach M 2012. Quotation in sign languages—a visible context shift. Quotatives: Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives I van Alphen, I Buchstaller 203–28 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hinterwimmer S 2017. Two kinds of perspective taking in narrative texts. Proceedings of the 27th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 27) D Burgdorf, J Collard, S Maspong, B Stefánsdóttir 282–301 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hitchcock A, dir 1954. Rear Window Los Angeles, CA: Paramount
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Hobbs JR. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cogn. Sci. 3:167–90
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Holton R. 1997. Some telling examples: a reply to Tsohatzidis. J. Pragmat. 28:625–28
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hübl A 2014. Context shift (im)possible: indexicals in German Sign Language. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Student Organization of Linguistics in Europe (ConSOLE XXI) M Kohlberg, K Bellamy, E Dutton 171–83 Leiden, Neth: Leiden Univ. Cent. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hübl A, Maier E, Steinbach M. 2019. To shift or not to shift: quotation and attraction in DGS. Sign Lang. Linguist. 22:2171–209
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hunter J. 2016. Reports in discourse. Dialogue Discourse 7:41–35
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnson M 2017. Quotation through history: a historical case for the proper treatment of quotation. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation P Saka, M Johnson 281–302 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaplan D 1989. Demonstratives. Themes from Kaplan J Almog, J Perry, H Wettstein 565–614 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Lasersohn PN. 2005. Context dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste. Linguist. Philos. 28:643–86
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Lee E 2020. The Logic of Narratives Leiden, Neth: Brill Rodopi
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Lillo-Martin D 1995. The point of view predicate in American Sign Language. Language, Gesture, and Space K Emmorey, J Reilly 155–70 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Lillo-Martin D 2012. Utterance reports and constructed action. Sign Language: An International Handbook R Pfau, M Steinbach, B Woll 365–87 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Lillo-Martin D, de Quadros RM. 2011. Acquisition of the syntax–discourse interface: the expression of point of view. Lingua 121:4623–36
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Maienborn C 2011. Event semantics. Semantics—Theories C Maienborn, K von Heusinger, P Portner 232–66 Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Maier E. 2014. Pure quotation. Philos. Compass 9:9615–30
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Maier E. 2015a. Quotation and unquotation in free indirect discourse. Mind Lang 30:3235–73
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Maier E. 2015b. Reported speech in the transition from orality to literacy.. Glotta 91:1152–70
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Maier E 2017. The pragmatics of attraction: explaining unquotation in direct and free indirect discourse. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Quotation P Saka, M Johnson 259–80 Berlin: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Maier E. 2018. Quotation, demonstration, and attraction in sign language role shift. Theor. Linguist. 44:3/4165–76
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Maier E. 2021. Attributions of form and content: a discourse-structural account of reporting Unpubl. Ms., Univ. Groningen, Neth: https://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/005597
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Maier E, Bimpikou S 2019. Shifting perspectives in pictorial narratives. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 23 2 MT Espinal, E Castroviejo, M Leonetti, L McNally, C Real-Puigdollers 95–105 Barcelona: Univ. Autòn. Barcelona, Bellaterra
    [Google Scholar]
  58. McCloud S. 1993. Understanding Comics Northampton, MA: Tundra
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Meir I, Padden CA, Aronoff A, Sandler W. 2007. Body as subject. J. Linguist. 43:3531–63
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Pfau R, Salzmann M, Steinbach M. 2018. The syntax of sign language agreement: common ingredients but unusual recipe. Glossa 3:1107
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Quer J 2005. Context shift and indexical variables in sign languages. Proceedings of the 15th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT 15) E Georgala, J Howell 152–68 Washington, DC: Linguist. Soc. Am.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Reboul A, Delfitto D, Fiorin G. 2015. The syntactic and semantic properties of free indirect discourse. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 2:255–71
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Recanati F. 2001. Open quotation. Mind 110:439637–87
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Richard M. 1986. Quotation, grammar, and opacity. Linguist. Philos. 9:3383–403
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Schlenker P. 2003. A plea for monsters. Linguist. Philos. 26:129–120
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Schlenker P. 2004. Context of thought and context of utterance: a note on free indirect discourse and the historical present. Mind Lang 19:3279–304
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Schlenker P. 2017a. Super monsters. I: Attitude and action role shift in sign language. Semant. Pragmat. 10:91–65
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Schlenker P. 2017b. Super monsters. II: Role shift, iconicity and quotation in sign language. Semant. Pragmat. 10:121–67
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Schlenker P. 2018a. Gesture projection and cosuppositions. Linguist. Philos. 41:295–365
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Schlenker P. 2018b. Visible meaning: sign languages and the foundations of semantics. Theor. Linguist. 44:3/4123–208
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Schlenker P. 2018c. What is super semantics?. Philos. Perspect. 32:1365–453
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Stec K, Huiskes M, Redeker G. 2016. Multimodal quotation: role shift practices in spoken narratives. J. Pragmat. 104:1–17
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Steinbach M 2021. Role shift—theoretical perspectives. Theoretical and Experimental Sign Language Research J Quer, R Pfau, A Herrmann 351–77 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Steinbach M, Onea E. 2016. A DRT analysis of discourse referents and anaphora resolution in sign language. J. Semant. 33:3409–48
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Stephenson T. 2007. Judge dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste. Linguist. Philos. 30:487–525
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Stojanovic I. 2007. Talking about taste: disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth. Linguist. Philos. 30:691–706
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Stokke A. 2013. Protagonist projection. Mind Lang 28:2204–32
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Stokke A 2021. Protagonist projection, character focus, and mixed quotation. The Language of Fiction E Maier, A Stokke Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press In press
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Streeck J. 2002. Grammars, words, and embodied meanings: on the uses and evolution of so and like. J. Commun. 52:3581–96
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Washington C. 1992. The identity theory of quotation. J. Philos. 89:582–605
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Wilder B dir 1961. One, Two, Three Los Angeles, CA: Mirisch/United Artists
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Wildfeuer J. 2014. Film Discourse Interpretation: Towards a New Paradigm for Multimodal Film Analysis London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-021042
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-021042
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error