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


FI: Overviews

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.
[Endorsements]

 

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]

 

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

 

Pascual, E. 2002. Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.
[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]

 

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

 

Antović, M. In press. Waging a war against oneself: A metaphor at the heart of Christian ascetic practice. In P. Chilton & M. Kopytowska (eds.). Religious Language, Metaphor and the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [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. University of Aarhus.

 

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

 

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.

 

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. [Abstract]

 

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. [Abstract]

 

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.

 

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. 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. 2006. (Ad)mirativiteit in het Nederlands. Feestbundel voor Ad Zuiderent.

 

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

 

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]

 

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

 

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. 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. [Final draft]

 

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]

 

Królak, E. 2008. Fictive interaction: Its Functions and Usage in Discourse. PhD 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]

 

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. & 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. 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. & E. Królak. The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in literary bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish translations. Under review.

 

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.

 

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

 

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. [Abstract]

 

Spronck, S. 2015. Reported Speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and Social Cognition in a Language of the Kimberley Region, Western Australia. PhD 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. [Abstract]

 

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.

 

van der Voort, H. 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. [Abstract]

 

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

 

Xiang, M. & E. Pascual. 2016. Debate with Zhuangzi: Expository Questions as fictive interaction blends in ancient Chinese philosophy. Pragmatics 26(1): 137-162.

 

back to top >

FI as discursive device


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. [Abstract]

 

Demeter, G. 2011. “IFID vs. Fictive Apologies” and “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, 77–78; 168–171.

 

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. [Abstract]

 

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

 

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

 

Pascual, E. & E. Królak. The ‘listen to characters thinking’ novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in literary bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish translations. Under review.

 

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. In prep. “In the beginning there was conversation”: Fictive interaction in the Hebrew Bible.

 

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. & E. Pascual. 2016. Debate with Zhuangzi: Expository Questions as fictive interaction blends in ancient Chinese philosophy. Pragmatics 26(1): 137-162.

 

back to top >

 

FI as communicative strategy

Oakley, T. In press (2017). Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse. Linguistics Vanguard.

 

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]

 

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]

 

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.

 

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. 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. 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.

 

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