{"id":5,"date":"2015-07-13T00:16:58","date_gmt":"2015-07-13T00:16:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/?page_id=5"},"modified":"2026-05-06T10:00:53","modified_gmt":"2026-05-06T10:00:53","slug":"publications","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/","title":{"rendered":"PUBLICATIONS"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n
\r\n

FI: Overviews<\/a> | FI as cognitive phenomenon<\/a> | FI as linguistic construction<\/a> | FI as discursive device<\/a> | <\/span>FI as communicative strategy<\/a> <\/span><\/h4>\r\n

FI: Overviews<\/a><\/span><\/h4>\r\n

Oakley, T.<\/a> (by invitation). 2016. Conceptual Integration and Fictive Interaction<\/a>. Literary Universals Project<\/em><\/a>, University of Connecticut, USA.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2002. Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts<\/a><\/em>. <\/em>Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series. <\/span>
[Summary in: <\/span>The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law: Forensic Linguistics<\/em><\/span> 11(1): 169-172, 2004]<\/span><\/span>
[Reviews in: <\/span>Pragmatics<\/em><\/span>, 13(4): 578-579, 2003, and <\/span>Lista de Distribuci\u00f3n de Ling\u00fc\u00edstica del Espa\u00f1ol <\/em><\/span>[Spanish Linguistics list], 23 April 2007]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2014. Fictive Interaction: The Conversation Frame in Thought, Language, and Discourse<\/em><\/a>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.<\/span>
[Website, with endorsements<\/a>]<\/span> [Reviews: Cognitive Semiotics (<\/em><\/a>2015, 8(1);<\/a> Cognitive Linguistics, <\/em>2015, 26(4);<\/a> Ling\u00fc\u00edstica <\/em><\/a><\/span>2015, <\/span>31(2)]<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/p>\r\n

[Korean translation by Donghwan Kim and Taeseong Lim, \u00a9 2020 by Logos-Lime Publishing Co.<\/a>]<\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. (by invitation) 2016. Fictieve interactie. In A. Reuneker, R.J.U. Boogaart & S.E. Lensink. Aries Netwerk: Een constructicon<\/em>. Leiden: Leiden University, 158\u2013160. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. & T. Oakley<\/a> (by invitation). 2017, 2021. Fictive interaction. In B. Dancygier (ed.). Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics<\/a>.<\/em> Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 347\u2013360. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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

[Korean translation by Donghwan Kim and Taeseong Lim, \u00a9 2021 by Logos-Lime Publishing Co.<\/a>]<\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. & S. Sandler. 2016. Fictive interaction and the conversation frame: An overview<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 3\u201322. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2020, 2021. Todd Oakley, Rhetorical Minds: Meditations on the Cognitive Science of Persuasion, New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books, 2020; x + 318 pp<\/a>. Discourse Studies<\/em><\/a> 23(1): 110-112.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

back to top<\/a><\/span> >
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

FI as cognitive phenomenon<\/a><\/span><\/h4>\r\n

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<\/a><\/u><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Abrantes, A.M. 2021. Telling vs. showing: Imagined dialogues, the conversation frame, and sense making in the arts. In P. Hanenberg & W. Hallet (eds.). Cognition, Culture, and the Arts: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Narrating, Understanding, and Reading<\/em><\/a>. Berlin: Peter Lang, 79-91.<\/p>\r\n

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<\/em><\/a>. Oxford: Taylor & Francis Group Ltd.,\u00a0255-263. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Antovi\u0107, M. 2018. Waging war against oneself: A conceptual blend at the heart of Christian ascetic practice<\/a>. In P. Chilton & M. Kopytowska (Eds.). Religion, Language, and the Human Mind<\/a>.<\/em> New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 386-406. [Abstract<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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

Brandt, L. 2010. Language and Enunciation: A Cognitive Inquiry with Special Focus on Conceptual Integration in Semiotic Meaning Construction<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. dissertation, Aarhus University.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Brandt, L. 2013a. Metaphor and the communicative mind<\/a>. Journal of Cognitive Semiotics<\/em> 1-2(5): 37-72. [Available at SSRN: https:\/\/ssrn.com\/abstract=2388214 and http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.2139\/ssrn.2388214]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Brandt, L. 2013b. The Communicative Mind: A Linguistic Exploration of Conceptual Integration and Meaning Construction<\/a><\/em>. <\/em>Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.\u00a0<\/span>[Review: Cognitive Linguistics<\/em>, 2015<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. & L. Brandt. 2015. Embodied fictive interaction metaphors: The primacy of the Conversation Frame in dance discourse. In S. Lestrade, P. de Swart & L. Hogeweg (eds.). Addenda. Artikelen voor Ad Foolen<\/em>. Nijmegen: Radboud Repository, 321\u2013334. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/p>\r\n

Dutilh Novaes, C. & R. French. 2018. Paradoxes and structural rules from a dialogical perspective<\/a>. Philosophical Issues<\/em> 28(1): 129-158.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Geurts, B. First saying, then believing: The pragmatic roots of folk psychology<\/a>. Mind & Language<\/em> 36(4): 515-532.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Oakley, T. 2014. Semantic domains in the Dream of the Rood. <\/em>In Brandt, L., Mey, J. L. & Rosenbaum, B. (eds.). Con Moto Ma Non Presto \u2013 For Per Aage Brandt 26. april 2014<\/em>. RASK International Journal for Language and Communication<\/em> 40: 331-352.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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<\/em><\/a>. Berlin: Peter Lang.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Oakley, T. 2020. Rhetorical Minds: Meditations on the Cognitive Science of Persuasion<\/a>.<\/em> Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pag\u00e1n C\u00e1novas, C. & M. Turner. 2016. Generic Integration Templates for fictive conversation<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation F<\/em>rame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 45\u201362.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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. <\/em>Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79\u2013107.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Stec, K. 2011. Simulating Fictive Interaction Modifiers.<\/em> MA Thesis. Aarhus University, Denmark.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Sullivan, K. 2009. The languages of art: How representational and abstract painters conceptualize their work in terms of language. Poetics Today<\/em> 30(3): 517-560.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Sullivan, K. 2016. Silent abstractions versus \u201cLook at me\u201d drawings: Corpus evidence that artworks\u2019 subject matter affects their fictive speech<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 87\u2013109.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Turner, M. 2010. Ten Lectures on Mind and Language<\/em>. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 110-111.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Xiang, M. 2016. Real, imaginary, or fictive? Philosophical dialogues in an early Daoist text and its pictorial version<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 63\u201386. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

back to top<\/a><\/span> >
<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n

FI as linguistic construction<\/a><\/span><\/h4>\r\n

Alekseenko, N. V. 2017. \u0424\u0415\u041d\u041e\u041c\u0415\u041d \u0424\u0418\u041a\u0422\u0418\u0412\u041d\u041e\u0419 \u041a\u041e\u041c\u041c\u0423\u041d\u0418\u041a\u0410\u0426\u0418\u0418 \u0412 \u041f\u041e\u041b\u0418\u041c\u041e\u0414\u0410\u041b\u042c\u041d\u041e\u041c \u0410\u0421\u041f\u0415\u041a\u0422\u0415<\/a> [Fictive interaction from a multimodal perspective]. \u0412\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u041c\u0413\u041b\u0423. \u0413\u0443\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u0438. [MSLU Bulletin: Humanitarian sciences<\/em>] Vol. 6 (777): 202-215.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Alekseenko, N. V. 2018. \u041e\u0421\u041e\u0411\u0415\u041d\u041d\u041e\u0421\u0422\u0418 \u0412\u0415\u0420\u0411\u0410\u041b\u0418\u0417\u0410\u0426\u0418\u0418 \u0424\u0418\u041a\u0422\u0418\u0412\u041d\u041e\u0419 \u0418\u041d\u0422\u0415\u0420\u0410\u041a\u0426\u0418\u0418 \u0412 \u0420\u0423\u0421\u0421\u041a\u041e\u041c \u042f\u0417\u042b\u041a\u0415 [Verbalization of fictive interaction in the Russian language]. \u0412\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u041c\u0413\u041b\u0423. \u0413\u0443\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u0438. [MSLU Bulletin: Humanitarian sciences<\/em>] Vol. 4 (793)<\/a>: 82-93.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Brandt, L. 2013. The Communicative Mind: A Linguistic Exploration of Conceptual Integration and Meaning Construction<\/a><\/em>. <\/em>Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

da Costa Junior, J.C. & L.F.M. Rocha. 2018. Compostos de discurso direto no portugu\u00eas do Brasil: Intera\u00e7\u00e3o fictiva no l\u00e9xico<\/a>. Diacr\u00edtica<\/em> 32: 159-178.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Ehmer, O. S. 2011. Imagination und Animation: die Herstellung mentaler R\u00e4ume durch animierte Rede<\/a><\/em>. Berlin, New York: Walther de Gruyter.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Geurts, B. 2021. First saying, then believing: The pragmatic roots of folk psychology<\/a>. Mind & Language<\/em> 36(4): 515-532.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2003. Inspirerend \u2018Nederlands\u2019? Een pleidooi voor doorstroom van kennis over taal. Nederlandse Taalkunde <\/em>8: 301-314.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2006a. (Ad)mirativiteit in het Nederlands. Feestbundel voor Ad Zuiderent.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Janssen, Th.A.J.M. 2006b. De focusconstructies\u00a0moet je eens kijken<\/em>\u00a0en\u00a0kijk eens. Nederlandse Taalkunde<\/em>\u00a011\/4, 332-365.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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. <\/em>Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 353-387.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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 <\/em>74(5): 112-114. [Referred to in: www.kennislink.nl<\/a><\/u>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jarque, M.J. 2016. What about? Fictive question-answer pairs for non-information-seeking functions across signed languages<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conver<\/em>sation<\/em> Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. <\/em>Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 171\u2013192. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jarque, M.J. & E. Pascual (by invitation). 2015.\u00a0Direct discourse expressing evidential values in Catalan Sign Language<\/a>. In J. Martines & V. Miglio (guest eds.). Special issue on \u2018Evidentiality in Iberian languages\u2019<\/a>. eHumanista\/IVITRA<\/em> 8: 421-445.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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<\/em><\/a>. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 259-280. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jarque, M.J. 2019. Interactional view of language. In Grounding,\u00a0Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 94\u201395.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 462\u2013475.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jarque, M.J. 2019. Sources of evidential constructions. In Grounding,\u00a0Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 716\u2013717.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jarque, M.J. & E. Pascual. 2021 (by invitation). From gesture- and sign-in-interaction to grammar: Fictive questions for relative clauses in signed languages<\/a>. Languages and Modalities<\/em> 1: 81-93.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Kr\u00f3lak, E. 2008. Fictive interaction: Its Functions and Usage in Discourse<\/em>. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Warsaw.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Kr\u00f3lak, E. 2016. A Polish nominal construction involving fictive interaction: Its scope and functions in discourse<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conver<\/em>sation<\/em> Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. <\/em>Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 235\u2013253. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Kr\u00f3lak, E. & A. Wiechecka. 2019. Rochatypu \u201cJestem Tego Warta\u201d<\/em> (\u2018\u201cI\u2019m-Worth-It\u201d attitude\u2019) – Selected pragmatic functions of nominal constructions involving direct speech in Polish. In I.M. Lehman & S. Kossakowska-Pisarek (eds.). Manifesting Identity in Cultural and Academic Discourses<\/em><\/a>. \u0141\u00f3dz\u0301: Spo\u0142eczna Akademia Nauk, 27-40.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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<\/em> 6(1): 79\u2013110.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2006b. Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics<\/em> 17(2): 245\u2013267.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2010 (by invitation). El concepto de interacci\u00f3n ficticia en espa\u00f1ol: De la conversaci\u00f3n a la gram\u00e1tica [Fictive interaction in Spanish: From conversation to grammar]. Dialog\u00eda: Revista de Ling\u00fc\u00edstica, Literatura y Cultura <\/em>5: 64-98.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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 <\/em>9(4): 285-310.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. & E. Kr\u00f3lak. 2018. The \u2018listen to characters thinking\u2019 novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in literary bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish translations<\/a>. Review of Cognitive Linguistics <\/em>16 (2): 399\u2013430. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E., E. Kr\u00f3lak & Th.A.J.M. Janssen. 2013. Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics<\/em> 24(2): 345\u2013366.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. & B. Marqueta. 2023. (2023, 2024). Viewpointed morphology: Spanish verb-complement compounds as fictive interaction constructions<\/a>. Journal of Linguistics<\/em> 60: 1-31. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/p>\r\n

Posio, P. & M. Rosemeyer. 2024. Dialogical and monological functions of the discourse marker bueno in spoken and written Spanish. Linguistics<\/em>, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/ling-2023-0113<\/a><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2003. Tend\u00eancias pros\u00f3dicas e interacionais do discurso reportado: uma abordagem sociocognitivista<\/a>. VEREDAS<\/em> 7(1-2): 247\u2013262.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M.. 2006. A fala silenciosa reportada: met\u00e1fora, meton\u00edmia e mesclagem<\/a>. Ling\u00fc\u00edstica<\/em> (PPGL\/UFRJ) 2: 35-42.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2008. Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o e cogni\u00e7\u00e3o: discurso (re)portado ou discurso (re)constru\u00eddo?<\/a>. Lumina, Juiz de Fora (MG) 6(1\/2): 101-116.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2012a. Autocita\u00e7\u00e3o fictiva como escaneamento mental: Mover-se conceptualmente sem se deslocar<\/a>. Revista da ABRALIN (Associa\u00e7\u00e3o Brasileira de Lingu\u00edstica)<\/em> 11(2): 113\u2013143.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2012b.\u00a0Construal operations in fictive and factive selfquotation<\/a>. DELTA Documenta\u00e7\u00e3o de Estudos em Ling\u00fc\u00edstica Te\u00f3rica e Aplicada<\/em> 29(2): 311-339.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2013. A perspectiva\u00e7\u00e3o conceptual em autocita\u00e7\u00e3o factiva e fictiva<\/a>. D.E.L.T.A.<\/em> 29(2): 311-339.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2014. Autocita\u00e7\u00e3o fictiva em portugu\u00eas europeu e brasileiro<\/a>. Alfa: Revista de Lingu\u00edstica<\/em> (UNESP. Online) 58: 63-92.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M & P. Arantes. 2016. Intonation of fictive vs. actual direct speech counterparts in a Brazilian Portuguese corpus<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction. <\/em>Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 215\u2013234.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2020. Discurso reportado \u00e9 problema; intera\u00e7\u00e3o fictiva, solu\u00e7\u00e3o: padr\u00f5es discursivos e informacionais em corpus de fala espont\u00e2nea do PB<\/a>. Ling\u00fc\u00edstica<\/em><\/a> 36(2): 131-149.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. & J.D. Silva. 2023. Intera\u00e7\u00e3o Fictiva como exemplifica\u00e7\u00e3o em discurso direto: ensino-aprendizagem de portugu\u00eas como l\u00edngua estrangeira<\/a> [Fictive interaction as exemplification in direct speech: teaching and learning of portuguese as a foreign language]. Gragoat\u00e1 28(62), DOI10.22409\/gragoata.v28i62.574.<\/p>\r\n

Sandler, S. & E. Pascual. 2019. (by invitation). In the beginning there was conversation: Fictive speech in the Hebrew Bible<\/a>. In C. Gentens, M.S. Sansi\u00f1ena, S. Spronck & A. Van linden (guest eds.). Special issue \u2018Irregular perspective shifts and perspective persistence: Discourse-oriented and theoretical approaches\u2019. Pragmatics<\/em><\/a> 29(2): 250\u2013276. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/p>\r\n

Spronck, S. 2015. Reported Speech in Ungarinyin: Grammar and Social Cognition in a Language of the Kimberley Region, Western Australi<\/em>a<\/a>. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Australian National University.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Spronck, S. 2016. Evidential fictive interaction in Ungarinyin and Russian<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction<\/em>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 255\u2013275.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Spronck, S. & D. E. Casartelli. 2021. In a manner of speaking: How reported speech may have shaped grammar<\/a>. Frontiers in Communication – Language Sciences.<\/em> https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fcomm.2021.624486<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Spronck, S. & T. Nikitina. 2019. M and R as elements of a syntactic unit: Where would the relation between M and R come from, if not from syntax?<\/a> Linguistic Typology<\/em> 23(1): 245\u2013254. [Final draft<\/a>]
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Stec, K., M. Huiskes & G. Redeker. 2015. Multimodal analysis of quotation in oral narratives. Open Linguistics<\/em> 1: 531\u2013554. [url<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Verhagen, A. 2021. Verbeelding in taal \u2212 Een Jip-en-Janneke-perspectief. Afscheidsrede. Universiteit Leiden, 11 oktober 2021. [url<\/a>] [downloadable pdf<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Voort, H. van der. 2009. Reduplication and repetition of person markers in Guapor\u00e9 isolates. Morphology <\/em>19(2): 263\u2013286.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Voort, H. van der. 2013. Fala fict\u00edcia fossilizada: O tempo futuro em Aikan\u00e3. Boletim do Museu Paraense Em\u00edlio Goeldi<\/em> (Ci\u00eancias Humanas) 8(2): 359\u2013377.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Voort, H.\u00a0van der 2016. Recursive inflection and grammaticalized fictive interaction in the southwestern Amazon<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction<\/em>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 277\u2013299.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Vries, L. de. 2010. Direct speech, fictive interaction, and bible translation. The Bible Translator<\/em> 61(1): 31-40.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

de Vries, R. 2014. \u201cEen experimenteel onderzoek naar de communicatieve effectiviteit van directe rede samenstellingen in productadvertenties\u201d [An experimental study of the communicative effectiveness of direct speech compounds in product advertisements]. Master thesis, Dept. Communication and Information Studies, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

back to top<\/a><\/span> >
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

FI as discursive device<\/a><\/span><\/h4>\r\n

Coulson, S. & T. Oakley. 2006. Purple persuasion: Deliberative rhetoric and conceptual blending<\/a>. In J. Luchjenbroers (ed). Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across Languages, Fields, and Philosophical Boundaries<\/em>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 47\u201365.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Coulson, S. & E. Pascual. 2006.\u00a0For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending<\/a><\/u>.\u00a0Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics<\/em>\u00a04: 153-181.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Dancygier B. .2021. Fictive deixis, direct discourse, and viewpoint networks<\/a>. Frontiers in Communication<\/em> 6: 624334. doi: 10.3389\/fcomm.2021.624334<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Demeter, G. 2011. IFID vs. fictive apologies. In Explicit Apologies in English and Romanian: A Construction Grammar Approach<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 77\u201378.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. Dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 168\u2013171.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Demeter, G. 2016. On discourse-motivated \u2018sorries\u2019: Fictive apologies in English, Hungarian, and Romanian<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 151\u2013168.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

FitzGerald, W. & T. Oakley. 2016. Invocation or apostrophe?: Prayer and the conversation frame in public discourse<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction<\/em>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 131\u2013150.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Fonseca, P. 2016. Fictive interaction Blended Networks in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: Conceptualizing Political Humor Discourse Not Only For Entertainment Purposes<\/a>.<\/em> Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Salamanca, Spain.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Fonseca, P., E. Pascual & T. Oakley. 2020. \u201cHi, Mr. President!\u201d: Fictive interaction blends as a unifying\u00a0rhetorical strategy in satire<\/a>. Review of Cognitive Linguistics<\/em> 18(1): 183\u2013216. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jarque, M.J. 2019. Modal functions of palm-up form in LSC discourse. In Grounding,\u00a0Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 637\u2013645.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Jarque, M.J. 2019. LSC modals and the grounding function. In Grounding,\u00a0Subjectivization and Deixis: Modal Constructions in Catalan Sign Language and their Interaction with other Semantic Domains<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Barcelona, 663\u2013673.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Kr\u00f3lak, E. 2008. Fictive Interaction: Its Functions and Usage in Discourse<\/em>. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Warsaw.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Liang, Y. 2020. \u201cThe effect of literacy on the use of direct vs. indirect speech\u201d. Master’s thesis, Dept. of Linguistics, Zhejiang University, China.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Oakley, T. 2020. Rhetorical Minds: Meditations on the Cognitive Science of Persuasion<\/a>.<\/em> Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Oakley, T. 2017. Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse<\/a>. In Special issue: ‘Towards a multimodal construction grammar’<\/a>, guest edited by: E. Zima\u00a0& A. Bergs. Linguistics Vanguard<\/em> 3 (s1). doi:10.1515\/lingvan-2016-0046<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. & E. Kr\u00f3lak. 2018. The \u2018listen to characters thinking\u2019 novel: Fictive interaction as narrative strategy in literary bestsellers and their Spanish and Polish translations<\/a>. Review of Cognitive Linguistics <\/em>16 (2): 399\u2013430. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Piepers, J., M. van de Groep, H. van Halteren, & H. de Hoop. 2021. \u201cAmsterdam, you\u2019re raining!\u201d First-hand experience in tweets with spatio-temporal addressees<\/a>. Journal of Pragmatics <\/em>176: 97-109<\/a>.<\/em> [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2008. Comunica\u00e7\u00e3o e cogni\u00e7\u00e3o: Discurso (re)portado ou discurso (re)constru\u00eddo?<\/a>. Lumina, Juiz de Fora (MG) 6(1\/2): 101-116.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. 2020. Discurso reportado \u00e9 problema; Intera\u00e7\u00e3o fictiva, solu\u00e7\u00e3o: padr\u00f5es discursivos e informacionais em corpus de fala espont\u00e2nea do PB<\/a>. Ling\u00fc\u00edstica<\/em><\/a> 36(2): 131-149.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rossini Martins Cardoso, R., K. Nunes Pereira Oliva, R. Ara\u00fajo Castro, M.C. Zuppardi, & I R. Malta. 2021. Fictivity in Vogue: A cognitive-functional categorization of fictive speech acts in a fashion corpus using corpus linguistics<\/a>. SOLETRAS<\/em> 41: 343-365.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Sandler, S. (by invitation). Under review. Language as literature: Characters use and the conversation frame in everyday spoken discourse<\/a>. Ms. [Full draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Sandler, S. & E. Pascual. 2019. (by invitation). In the beginning there was conversation: Fictive speech in the Hebrew Bible<\/a>. In C. Gentens, M.S. Sansi\u00f1ena,\u00a0S. Spronck & A. Van linden (guest eds.). Special issue \u2018Irregular Perspective Shifts and Perspective Persistence\u2019. Pragmatics<\/em><\/a> 29(2): 250\u2013276. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Santos Mendes, J.V. 2005. The Semantics-Pragmatics of Route Directions<\/em><\/a>. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Hamburg.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Stec, K. 2007. Wait \u2018til you Hear the Best Part: Fictive Interaction in Narrative<\/em>. Undergraduate Honors Thesis. Dept. of Linguistics, University of California.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Xiang, M. 2016. Real, imaginary, or fictive? Philosophical dialogues in an early Daoist text and its pictorial version<\/a>. In: E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 63\u201386. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Xiang, M. & E. Pascual. 2016. Debate with Zhuangzi: Expository questions as fictive interaction blends in an old Chinese text<\/a>. Pragmatics <\/em>26(1): 137-162.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Xiang, M. 2018. A Cognitive Rhetorical Analysis of Fictive Questions in the Zhuangzi Text<\/em>. Ph.D. dissertation, Zhejiang University, China. [Summary, Table of Contents, first chapter<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Xiang, M. 2023. Fictive Questions in the <\/em>Zhuangzi: A Cognitive Rhetorical Study<\/em><\/a>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Figurative Thought and Language series).<\/p>\r\n

Xiang, M. & B. Ma. 2020. How can I persuade you without making self-assertions? A cognitive rhetorical analysis of the use of fictive questions in an early Daoist text<\/a>. In Vera da Silva Sinha, Ana Moreno-N\u00fa\u00f1ez & Zhen Tian (eds.). Language, Culture and Identity: Signs of Life.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 249-273.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Xiang, M., E. Pascual & B. Ma. 2022. Rhetorical questions as intersubjective mixed viewpoint constructions in an early Daoist text<\/a>. Journal of Historical Pragmatics<\/em><\/a> 23(1): 29-53. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Weiss, Daniel 2021. \u201cSorry Banks. Party is over!\u201d Fiktive Zitate im politischen Diskurs<\/a> [\u201cSorry Banks. Party is over!\u201d\u00a0Fictive quotes in political discourse<\/span><\/span>]. In Bernhard Brehmer, Anja Gattnar & Tatjana Perevozchikova. Von A wie Aspekt bis Z wie Zdvo\u0159ilost: Ein Kaleidoskop der Slavistik f\u00fcr Tilman Berger zum 65<\/em> Geburtstag <\/em><\/a>[From A for aspect to Z for Zdvo\u0159ilost: A kaleidoscope of Slavic studies for Tilman Berger on his 65th birthday<\/span><\/span>]<\/em>. T\u00fcbingen: T\u00fcbingen Library Publishing, 217-229.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

back to top<\/a><\/span> ><\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n

FI as communicative strategy<\/a><\/span><\/h4>\r\n

Alekseenko, N. V. 2017. \u0424\u0415\u041d\u041e\u041c\u0415\u041d \u0424\u0418\u041a\u0422\u0418\u0412\u041d\u041e\u0419 \u041a\u041e\u041c\u041c\u0423\u041d\u0418\u041a\u0410\u0426\u0418\u0418 \u0412 \u041f\u041e\u041b\u0418\u041c\u041e\u0414\u0410\u041b\u042c\u041d\u041e\u041c \u0410\u0421\u041f\u0415\u041a\u0422\u0415<\/a> [Fictive interaction from a multimodal perspective]. \u0412\u0435\u0441\u0442\u043d\u0438\u043a \u041c\u0413\u041b\u0423. \u0413\u0443\u043c\u0430\u043d\u0438\u0442\u0430\u0440\u043d\u044b\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u0438. [MSLU Bulletin: Humanitarian sciences] Vol. 6 (777): 202-215.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Alekseenko, N. V. 2021. \u0424\u0435\u043d\u043e\u043c\u0435\u043d \u0444\u0438\u043a\u0442\u0438\u0432\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043a\u043e\u043c\u043c\u0443\u043d\u0438\u043a\u0430\u0446\u0438\u0438 \u0432 \u0434\u0438\u0441\u043a\u0443\u0440\u0441\u0435 \u0441\u043e\u0446\u0438\u0430\u043b\u044c\u043d\u043e\u0433\u043e \u043f\u043b\u0430\u043a\u0430\u0442\u0430<\/a> [Fictive interaction phenomenon in social advertising discourse]. \u0424\u0438\u043b\u043e\u043b\u043e\u0433\u0438\u0447\u0435\u0441\u043a\u0438\u0435 \u043d\u0430\u0443\u043a\u0438. \u0412\u043e\u043f\u0440\u043e\u0441\u044b \u0442\u0435\u043e\u0440\u0438\u0438 \u0438 \u043f\u0440\u0430\u043a\u0442\u0438\u043a\u0438 [Philology Theory & Practice<\/em>] 14(6): 1866-1871.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Brandt, L. & E. Pascual. 2016. \u2018Say hello to this ad\u2019: The persuasive rhetoric of fictive interaction in marketing<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em> Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 303\u2013322. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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 <\/em>13(2): 255\u2013288.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Coulson, S. & T. Oakley. 2006. Purple persuasion: Deliberative rhetoric and conceptual blending<\/a>. In J. Luchjenbroers (ed). Cognitive Linguistics Investigations: Across Languages, Fields, and Philosophical Boundaries<\/em>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 47\u201365.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Coulson, S. & E. Pascual. 2006.\u00a0For the sake of argument: Mourning the unborn and reviving the dead through conceptual blending<\/a><\/u>.\u00a0Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics<\/em>\u00a04: 153-181.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

da Silva, J. U. & L. F. Matos Rocha. 2023. Intera\u00e7\u00e3o fictiva em discurso direto: Como e por que l\u00edderes religiosos convencem multid\u00f5es [Fictive interaction in direct speech: How and why religious leaders persuade crowds]. Linguagem em (Dis)curso<\/em> 23(2), DOI: 10.1590\/1982-4017-23-31<\/a><\/p>\r\n

Dornelas, A. 2018. Intera\u00e7\u00e3o Fictiva como Estrat\u00e9gia Comunicativa de Crian\u00e7as Ecol\u00e1licas com Transtorno do Espectro Autista<\/em> [‘Fictive Interaction as Communicative Strategy by Echolaic Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder’]. Ph.D. dissertation, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Dornelas, A. & E. Pascual. 2016. Echolalia as communicative strategy: Fictive interactionin the speech of children with autism<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds.).\u00a0The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction.<\/em>\u00a0Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 343\u2013361. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Fonseca, P., E. Pascual & T. Oakley. 2020. \u201cHi, Mr. President!\u201d: Fictive interaction blends as a unifying\u00a0rhetorical strategy in satire<\/a>. Review of Cognitive Linguistics<\/em> 18(1): 183\u2013216.
<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Kleppa, L-A. 2016. Intera\u00e7\u00f5es fictivas enquanto estrat\u00e9gia comunicativa em sujeitos com agramatismo: Um estudo de caso<\/a> [Fictive Interactions as a Communicative Strategy in Speakers with Agrammatism: a Case Study]. Estudos Lingu\u00edsticos<\/em> 45(2): 555-565.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Oakley, T. 2017. Multimodal rhetoric: Fictive interaction strategies in political discourse<\/a>. Linguistics Vanguard<\/em> 3(1). DOI: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/lingvan-2016-0046<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Oakley, T. 2020. Rhetorical Minds: Meditations on the Cognitive Science of Persuasion<\/a>.<\/em> Oxford & New York: Berghahn Books.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Overmars, L. 2014. “Fictive Questions in Courtroom Monologues: Covert Intentions in Closing Arguments and Rebuttals”. BA thesis, Dept. English, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2007. Listening to the evidence: Fictive interaction metaphors as argumentative strategies before the American jury.\u00a0Proceedings of the 2nd European IAFL Conference on Forensic Linguistics \/ Language and the Law 2006.<\/em>\u00a0Barcelona: IULA, 305-312.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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. <\/em>Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 79\u2013107.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2008b. Text for context, trial for trialogue: An ethnographic study of a fictive interaction blend. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics <\/em>6: 50\u201382.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2006a. Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk<\/em> 26(3): 383\u2013402.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. 2004. Triadic questions in court: A case study. Semikolon<\/em> 4(9): 71-92.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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<\/em>: 451-462.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

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<\/em> 23(1): 163-180.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E. & C. Versluis. 2006. Verbale demonstratie als strategie van functionele adaptatie bij Broca-afasie: Een gevalstudie [Verbal demonstration as strategy of functional adaptation in Broca\u2019s aphasia: A case study]. Voortgang <\/em>24: 169-182.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Pascual, E., A. Dornelas & T. Oakley. 2017 (actual publication date: 2019). When \u2018Goal!\u2019 means \u2018soccer\u2019: Verbatim fictive speech as communicative strategy by children with autism and two control groups. Pragmatics & Cognition<\/em><\/a> 24(3): 315\u2013345. [Final draft<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Rocha, L.F.M. & J.D. Silva. 2023. Intera\u00e7\u00e3o Fictiva como exemplifica\u00e7\u00e3o em discurso direto: ensino-aprendizagem de portugu\u00eas como l\u00edngua estrangeira<\/a> [Fictive interaction as exemplification in direct speech: teaching and learning of portuguese as a foreign language]. Gragoat\u00e1 28(62), DOI10.22409\/gragoata.v28i62.574.<\/p>\r\n

van Beveren, S. 2020. Stancetaking in Court: How the Stance Triangle can be used to analyse Stance in Courtroom Opening Statements<\/em>. Bachelor’s thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, July, 2020.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

van de Graaf, B. 2018. Fictive Interaction in Opening Statements: A Comparison of the Use of Interactive Linguistic Devices between the Prosecution and Defense<\/a><\/em>. Bachelor’s thesis: VU University Amsterdam. [Full text<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Versluis, C.N. & L.-A. Kleppa. [2008] 2016. The use of interactive structures as communicative strategy in Dutch and Portuguese aphasic speakers<\/a>. In E. Pascual & S. Sandler (eds). The Conversation Frame: Forms and Functions of Fictive Interaction<\/em>. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 323\u2013342. [Abstract<\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Vries, de, R. 2014. \u201cEen experimenteel onderzoek naar de communicatieve effectiviteit van directe rede samenstellingen in productadvertenties\u201d [An experimental study of the communicative effectiveness of direct speech compounds in product advertisements]. Master’s thesis, Dept. Communication and Information Studies, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.<\/span><\/p>\r\n

Xie, F., E. Pascual, & T. Oakley. 2013. Functional echolalia in autism speech: Verbal formulae and repeated prior utterances as communicative and cognitive strategies<\/a>. Frontiers in Psychology<\/em> (Language Sciences section) 14: 1010615.<\/p>\r\n


back to top<\/a><\/span> ><\/span><\/span><\/p>\r\n<\/div><\/div>\r\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"spay_email":""},"yoast_head":"\nPUBLICATIONS - Fictive Interaction<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"PUBLICATIONS - Fictive Interaction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"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, … Continue reading →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Fictive Interaction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-06T10:00:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/\",\"name\":\"Fictive Interaction\",\"description\":\"The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/\",\"name\":\"PUBLICATIONS - Fictive Interaction\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-07-13T00:16:58+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-06T10:00:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"PUBLICATIONS\"}]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"PUBLICATIONS - Fictive Interaction","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"PUBLICATIONS - Fictive Interaction","og_description":"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, … Continue reading →","og_url":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/","og_site_name":"Fictive Interaction","article_modified_time":"2026-05-06T10:00:53+00:00","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/#website","url":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/","name":"Fictive Interaction","description":"The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/","name":"PUBLICATIONS - Fictive Interaction","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-07-13T00:16:58+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-06T10:00:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/publications\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"PUBLICATIONS"}]}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5"}],"version-history":[{"count":384,"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":911,"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/5\/revisions\/911"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/estherpascual.com\/fictiveinteraction\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}