Terug naar Want en Omdat

Causaliteit en subjectiviteit in een taalgebruiksbenadering van de grammatica van het Nederland

Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or: Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements

Causaliteit en subjectiviteit in een taalgebruiksbenadering van de grammatica van het Nederland

English constructions from a Dutch perspective: Where are the differences?

Language Use in Past and Presen

Achter het Nederlands. Over interacties tussen taal en achtergrondcognitie

Causaliteit en subjectiviteit in een taalgebruiksbenadering van de grammatica van het Nederland

Dreigt Polysemie uit de hand te lopen? Een oefening in semantische categorisering

Language Use in Past and Presen

The girl that promised to become something: An exploration into diachronic subjectification in Dutch

Language Use in Past and Presen

Construal and Stylistics – within a language, across contexts, across languages.

Language Use in Past and Presen

The origins of perspective taking lie in iconic language use: Unifying theories of signs, conversation, and narrative perspective

This paper proposes a theoretical reduction of the existence of perspective taking in discourse to the combination of two basic methods of communication: iconic simulation, and description by means of conventional symbols. This includes an integration of the depiction theory of quotation and a pragmatic version of the theory of signs. Perspective taking is argued to be a consequence of the iconic simulation of acts, linguistic acts in particular. The basic fact that a single utterance can comprise both depictive and descriptive components is in turn the basis for the occurrence of different variants of speech and thought representation, which are traditionally discussed under the rubric of indirect and free indirect discourse. On this basis, it is argued that the phenomena can actually be analyzed more insightfully (and more simply) directly in terms of interactions between specific linguistic items and the distinction between depiction and description. In addition, this “composite utterance” approach to perspective taking combines abstract conceptual clarity and simplicity with a high degree of flexibility in the way such interactions can work out in specific situations, which allows it to also serve as a basis for the analysis of “multiperspectival” and “doublevoiced” discourse