FI: Overviews | FI as cognitive phenomenon | FI as linguistic construction | FI as discursive device | FI as communicative strategy

FI: Overviews

Oakley, T. (by invitation). 2016. Conceptual Integration and Fictive Interaction. Literary Universals Project, University of Connecticut, USA.

 

Pascual, E. 2002. Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.
[Summary in: The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law: Forensic Linguistics 11(1): 169-172, 2004]
[Reviews in: Pragmatics, 13(4): 578-579, 2003, and Lista de Distribución de Lingüística del Español [Spanish Linguistics list], 23 April 2007]

 

Pascual, E. 2014. Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[Website, with endorsements] [Reviews: Cognitive Semiotics (2015, 8(1); Cognitive Linguistics, 2015, 26(4); Lingüística 2015, 31(2)]

 

Pascual, E. (by invitation) 2016. Fictieve interactie. In A. Reuneker, R.J.U. Boogaart & S.E. Lensink. Aries Netwerk: Een constructicon. Leiden: Leiden University, 158–160. [Final draft]

 

Pascual, E. & T. Oakley (by invitation). 2017. Fictive interaction. In B. Dancygier (ed.). Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 347–360. [Final draft]

 

Pascual, E. & S. Sandler (eds.). 2016. The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[Website, with endorsements] [
Reviews: Language and Dialogue, 2017 ; Language and Cognition, 2018; Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 2018]

 

Pascual, E. & S. Sandler. 2016. Fictive interaction and the conversation frame: An overview. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3–22. [Final draft]

back to top >

 

FI as cognitive phenomenon

 

Abrantes, A.M. 2009. Fictive interaction as an instance of theatricality in cognition. (24 May 2009). SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1409396

 

Abrantes, A.M. & E. Pascual. 2019 (by invitation). Talk this dance: On the conceptualisation of dance as fictive conversation. In Richard Kemp & Bruce McConachie (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Theatre, Performance, and Cognitive Science. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 255-263. [Final draft]

 

Antović, M. 2018. Waging war against oneself: A conceptual blend at the heart of Christian ascetic practice. In P. Chilton & M. Kopytowska (Eds.). Religion, Language, and the Human Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 386-406. [Abstract]

 

Brandt, L. 2008. A semiotic approach to fictive interaction as a representational strategy in communicative meaning construction. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (eds.). Mental Spaces in Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 110-148.

 

Brandt, L. 2010. Language and Enunciation: A Cognitive Inquiry with Special Focus on Conceptual Integration in Semiotic Meaning Construction. Ph.D. dissertation, Aarhus University.

 

Brandt, L. 2013. The Communicative Mind: A Linguistic Exploration of Conceptual Integration and Meaning Construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

[Review: Cognitive Linguistics, 2015]

 

Oakley, T. 2014. Semantic domains in the Dream of the Rood. In Brandt, L., Mey, J. L. & Rosenbaum, B. (eds.). Con Moto Ma Non Presto – For Per Aage Brandt 26. april 2014. RASK International Journal for Language and Communication 40: 331-352.

 

Oakley, T. & P.Aa. Brandt. 2009. Hypotyposis: Meta-representation, mind-reading, and fictive interaction. In W. Wildgen & B. van Heusden (eds). Metarepresentation, Self-Organization and Art. Berlin: Peter Lang.

 

Oakley, T. In press. Rhetorical Minds. Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.

 

Pagán Cánovas, C. & M. Turner. 2016. Generic Integration Templates for fictive conversation. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 45–62.

 

Pascual, E. 2008a. Fictive interaction blends in everyday language and courtroom settings. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (eds). Mental Spaces Approaches to Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79–107.

 

Stec, K. 2011. Simulating Fictive Interaction Modifiers. MA Thesis. Aarhus University, Denmark.

 

Sullivan, K. 2009. The languages of art: How representational and abstract painters conceptualize their work in terms of language. Poetics Today 30(3): 517-560.

 

Sullivan, K. 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. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87–109.

 

Turner, M. 2010. Ten Lectures on Mind and Language. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 110-111.

 

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. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 63–86. [Final draft]

back to top >

 

FI as linguistic construction

 

Brandt, L. 2013. The Communicative Mind: A Linguistic Exploration of Conceptual Integration and Meaning Construction. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

 

Costa Junior, J.C. & L.F.M. 2018. Compostos de discurso direto no português do Brasil: Interação fictiva no léxico. Diacrítica 32: 159-178.

 

Ehmer, O. S. 2011. Imagination und Animation: die Herstellung mentaler Räume durch animierte Rede. Berlin, New York: Walther de Gruyter.

 

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2003. Inspirerend ‘Nederlands’? Een pleidooi voor doorstroom van kennis over taal. Nederlandse Taalkunde 8: 301-314.

 

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2006a. (Ad)mirativiteit in het Nederlands. Feestbundel voor Ad Zuiderent.

 

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2006b. De focusconstructies moet je eens kijken en kijk eens. Nederlandse Taalkunde 11/4, 332-365.

 

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2007. A speaker/hearer-based grammar: The case of possessives and compounds. In M. Hannay and G. Steen (eds.). Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 353-387.

 

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. & E. Pascual. 2005. Doe-het-zelfsamenstellingen: De opkomst van zin-woordcombinaties [Do-it-yourself compounds: The emergence of sentence-word combinations]. Onze Taal 74(5): 112-114. [Referred to in: www.kennislink.nl]

 

Jarque, M.J. 2016. What about? Fictive question-answer pairs for non-information-seeking functions across signed languages. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 171–192. [Final draft]

 

Jarque, M.J. & E. Pascual (by invitation). 2015. Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan Sign Language. In J. Martines & V. Miglio (guest eds.). Special issue on ‘Evidentiality in Iberian languages’. eHumanista/IVITRA 8: 421-445.

 

Jarque, M.J. & E. Pascual. 2016. Mixed viewpoints in factual and fictive discourse in Catalan Sign Language narratives. In B. Dancygier, L. Wei-lun-Lu & A. Verhagen (eds.). Viewpoint and the Fabric of Meaning: Form and Use of Viewpoint Tools across Languages and Modalities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 259-280. [Final draft]

 

Jarque, M.J. 2019. Interactional view of language. In Grounding, Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 94–95.

 

Jarque, M.J. 2019. Quotative evidential constructions. In Grounding, Subjectification and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 462–475.

 

Jarque, M.J. 2019. Sources of evidential constructions. In Grounding, Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 716–717.

 

Królak, E. 2008. Fictive interaction: Its Functions and Usage in Discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Warsaw.

 

Królak, E. 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. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 235–253. [Final draft]

 

Królak, E.. & A. Wiechecka. Forth. Podejście typu “Jestem Tego Warta” (‘“I’m-Worth-It” attitude’) – Selected pragmatic functions of nominal constructions involving direct speech in Polish. In Manifesting Identity in Cultural and Academic Discourses. Społeczna Akademia Nauk.

 

Oakley, T. & V. Tobin. 2014. The whole is sometimes less than the sum of its parts: Toward a theory of document acts. Language and Cognition 6(1): 79–110.

 

Pascual, E. 2006b. Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(2): 245–267.

 

Pascual, E. 2010 (by invitation). El concepto de interacción ficticia en español: De la conversación a la gramática [Fictive interaction in Spanish: From conversation to grammar]. Dialogía: Revista de Lingüística, Literatura y Cultura 5: 64-98.

 

Pascual, E. & Th.A.J.M. Janssen. 2004. Zinnen in samenstellingen: presentaties van fictieve verbale interactie [Sentences within compounds: Presentations of fictive verbal interaction.]. Nederlandse Taalkunde 9(4): 285-310.

 

Pascual, E. & E. Królak. 2018. The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in literary bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish translations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2): 399–430. [Final draft]

 

Pascual, E., E. Królak & Th.A.J.M. Janssen. 2013. Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics 24(2): 345–366.

 

Sandler, S. & E. Pascual. 2019. (by invitation). In the beginning there was conversation: Fictive speech in the Hebrew Bible. In C. Gentens, M.S. Sansiñena, S. Spronck & A. Van linden (guest eds.). Special issue ‘Irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence: Discourse-oriented and theoretical approaches’. Pragmatics 29(2): 250–276. [Final draft]

 

Rocha, L.F.M. 2003. Tendências prosódicas e interacionais do discurso reportado: uma abordagem sociocognitivista. VEREDAS 7(1-2): 247–262.

 

Rocha, L.F.M.. 2006. A fala silenciosa reportada: metáfora, metonímia e mesclagem. Lingüística (PPGL/UFRJ) 2: 35-42.

 

Rocha, L.F.M. 2008. Comunicação e cognição: discurso (re)portado ou discurso (re)construído?. Lumina, Juiz de Fora (MG) 6(1/2): 101-116.

 

Rocha, L.F.M. 2012. Autocitação fictiva como escaneamento mental: Mover-se conceptualmente sem se deslocar. Revista da ABRALIN (Associação Brasileira de Linguística) 11(2): 113–143.

 

Rocha, L.F.M. 2013. A perspectivação conceptual em autocitação factiva e fictiva. D.E.L.T.A. 29(2): 311-339.

 

Rocha, L.F.M. 2014. Autocitação fictiva em português europeu e brasileiro. Alfa: Revista de Linguística (UNESP. Online) 58: 63-92.

 

Rocha, L.F.M & P. Arantes. 2016. Intonation of fictive vs. actual direct speech counterparts in a Brazilian Portuguese corpus. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 215–234.

 

Spronck, S. 2015. Reported Speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and Social Cognition in a Language of the Kimberley Region, Western Australia. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Australian National University.

 

Spronck, S. 2016. Evidential fictive interaction in Ungarinyin and Russian. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 255–275.

 

Stec, K., M. Huiskes & G. Redeker. 2015. Multimodal analysis of quotation in oral narratives. Open Linguistics 1: 531–554. [url]

 

Voort, H. van der. 2009. Reduplication and repetition of person markers in Guaporé isolates. Morphology 19(2): 263–286.

 

Voort, H. van der. 2013. Fala fictícia fossilizada: O tempo futuro em Aikanã. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi (Ciências Humanas) 8/2: 359–377.

 

Voort, H. van der 2016. Recursive inflection and grammaticalized fictive interaction in the southwestern Amazon. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 277–299.

 

Vries, L. de. 2010. Direct speech, fictive interaction, and bible translation. The Bible Translator 61(1): 31-40.

back to top >

 

FI as discursive device

Coulson, S. & T. Oakley. 2006. Purple persuasion: Deliberative rhetoric and conceptual blending. In J. Luchjenbroers (ed). Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across Languages, Fields, and Philosophical Boundaries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 47–65. 

 

Coulson, S. & E. Pascual. 2006. For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blendingAnnual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4: 153-181.

 


Demeter, G. 2011. IFID vs. fictive apologies. In Explicit Apologies in English and Romanian: A Construction Grammar Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 77–78.

 

Demeter, G. 2011. Constructions used to construe fictive apologies in the Written English Corpus. In Explicit Apologies in English and Romanian: A Construction Grammar Approach. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 168–171.

 

Demeter, G. 2016. On discourse-motivated ‘sorries’: Fictive apologies in English, Hungarian, and Romanian. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 151–168.

 

FitzGerald, W. & T. Oakley. 2016. Invocation or apostrophe?: Prayer and the conversation frame in public discourse. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 131–150.

 

Fonseca, P. 2016. Fictive interaction Blended Networks in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Conceptualizing Political Humor Discourse Not Only For Entertainment Purposes. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Salamanca, Spain.

 

Fonseca, P., E. Pascual & T. Oakley. Forth. “Hi, Mr. President!”: Fictive interaction blends as a unifying rhetorical strategy in satire. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. [Final draft]

 

Jarque, M.J. 2019. Modal functions of palm-up form in LSC discourse. In Grounding, Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 637–645.

 

Jarque, M.J. 2019. LSC modals and the grounding function. In Grounding, Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 663–673.

 

Królak, E. 2008. Fictive Interaction: Its Functions and Usage in Discourse. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Warsaw.

 

Oakley, T. In press. Rhetorical Minds. Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.

 

Oakley, T. 2017. Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse. In Special issue: ‘Towards a multimodal construction grammar’, guest edited by: E. Zima & A. Bergs. Linguistics Vanguard 3 (s1). doi:10.1515/lingvan-2016-0046

 

Pascual, E. & E. Królak. 2018. The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in literary bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish translations. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 16 (2): 399–430. [Final draft]

 

Sandler, S. (by invitation). Under review. Language as literature: Characters use and the conversation frame in everyday spoken discourse. Ms. [Full draft]

 

Sandler, S. & E. Pascual. 2019. (by invitation). In the beginning there was conversation: Fictive speech in the Hebrew Bible. In C. Gentens, M.S. Sansiñena, S. Spronck & A. Van linden (guest eds.). Special issue ‘Irregular Perspective Shifts and Perspective Persistence’. Pragmatics 29(2): 250–276. [Final draft]

 

Santos Mendes, J.V. 2005. The Semantics-Pragmatics of Route Directions. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hamburg.

 

Stec, K. 2007. Wait ‘til you Hear the Best Part: Fictive Interaction in Narrative. Undergraduate Honors Thesis. Dept. of Linguistics, University of California.

 

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. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 63–86. [Final draft]

 

Xiang, M. 2018. A Cognitive Rhetorical Analysis of Fictive Questions in the Zhuangzi Text. Ph.D. dissertation, Zhejiang University, China. [Summary, Table of Contents, first chapter]

 

Xiang, M. & E. Pascual. 2016. Debate with Zhuangzi: Expository questions as fictive interaction blends in an old Chinese text. Pragmatics 26(1): 137-162.

 

Xiang, M., E. Pascual & B. Ma. Forth. Rhetorical questions as intersubjective mixed viewpoint constructions in an early Daoist text. Journal of Historical Pragmatics. [Final draft]

back to top >

 

FI as communicative strategy

Brandt, L. & E. Pascual. 2016. ‘Say hello 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. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 303–322. [Final draft]

 

Cienki, A. & G. Giansante. 2014. Conversational framing in televised political discourse: A comparison from the 2008 elections in the United States and Italy. In C. Schubert & P. Fischer (guest eds). Special issue of the Journal of Language and Politics 13(2): 255–288.

 

Coulson, S. & T. Oakley. 2006. Purple persuasion: Deliberative rhetoric and conceptual blending. In J. Luchjenbroers (ed). Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across Languages, Fields, and Philosophical Boundaries. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 47–65.

 

Coulson, S. & E. Pascual. 2006. For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blendingAnnual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 4: 153-181.

 

Dornelas, A. 2018. Interação Fictiva como Estratégia Comunicativa de Crianças Ecolálicas com Transtorno do Espectro Autista [‘Fictive Interaction as Communicative Strategy by Echolaic Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder’]. Ph.D. dissertation, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil.

 

Dornelas, A. & E. Pascual. 2016. Echolalia as communicative strategy: Fictive interactionin the speech of children with autism. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 343–361. [Final draft]

 

Fonseca, P., E. Pascual & T. Oakley. Forth. “Hi, Mr. President!”: Fictive interaction blends as a unifying rhetorical strategy in satire. Review of Cognitive Linguistics.

 

Oakley, T. 2017. Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2016-0046

 

Oakley, T. In press. Rhetorical Minds. Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.

 

Pascual, E. 2007. Listening to the evidence: Fictive interaction metaphors as argumentative strategies before the American jury. Proceedings of the 2nd European IAFL Conference on Forensic Linguistics / Language and the Law 2006. Barcelona: IULA, 305-312.

 

Pascual, E. 2008a. Fictive interaction blends in everyday language and courtroom settings. In T. Oakley & A. Hougaard (eds). Mental Spaces Approaches to Discourse and Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79–107.

 

Pascual, E. 2008b. Text for context, trial for trialogue: An ethnographic study of a fictive interaction blend. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 50–82.

 

Pascual, E. 2006a. Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk 26(3): 383–402.

 

Pascual, E. 2004. Triadic questions in court: A case study. Semikolon 4(9): 71-92.

 

Pascual, E. 2003. Interrogatives in the field: The cognitive ethnopragmatics of a murder trial. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 451-462.

 

Pascual, E. 2002. Conversational compressions: Conceptual blending and virtual interaction in phrases. In: A. Hougaard & S.N. Lund (eds.). Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication 23(1): 163-180.

 

Pascual, E. & C. Versluis. 2006. Verbale demonstratie als strategie van functionele adaptatie bij Broca-afasie: Een gevalstudie [Verbal demonstration as strategy of fucntional adaptation in Broca’s aphasia: A case study]. Voortgang 24: 169-182.

 

Pascual, E., A. Dornelas & T. Oakley. 2017 (actual publication date: 2019). When ‘Goal!’ means ‘soccer’: Verbatim fictive speech as communicative strategy by children with autism and two control groups. Pragmatics & Cognition 24(3): 315–345. [Final draft]

 

van de Graaf, B. 2018. Fictive Interaction in Opening Statements: A Comparison of the Use of Interactive Linguistic Devices between the Prosecution and Defense. Bachelor’s thesis: VU University Amsterdam. [Full text]

 

Versluis, C.N. & L.-A. Kleppa. [2008] 2016. The use of interactive structures as communicative strategy in Dutch and Portuguese aphasic speakers. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 323–342. [Abstract]

 


back to top
>

          hcp_55_hb hcp_47_hb2 thecommunicativemind imaginarytrialogues