DEICTIC MOTION AND THE ADOPTION OF PERSPECTIVE IN GREEK'

Pragmatics l2:3.273-295(2002) Intemational PrasmaticsAssociation

DEICTIC MOTION AND THE ADOPTION OF PERSPECTIVE IN GREEK' Eleni Antonopoulou and Kiki Nikiforidou

Abstract In this paper we examine the semantics-pragmaticsof the deictic motion verb erxome'come' in central and extendeduses.We argue that a detailed language-specific analysis of erxome and its systemic counterpart pijeno'go'is necessary,since even at the level of basic appropriateness conditions, there are significant differencesfrom other languages. Based on extensive corpus data, we further argue that in third-person discourseerxome is a conventional means of adopting perspective. In particular, we show that the factors which arerelevant to the speaker's/narrator'schoice to identify with a particular point of view are amenable to a principled description which relies both on discoursal parameters and text-sensitive generalizations. Motivating the adoption-of-perspective usesis a subjectification shift whereby the speaker'spresenceat the goal of motion becomes increasingly more implicit. Our results, therefore, add to the study of deixis in naturallanguages,point to the existence of generalizations in the complex factors that underlie construal and highlight some of the cognitive mechanisms involved in meaning shifb. Keywords: Deictic motionverbs, Place-person-socialdeixis, Subjectification, Perspective,Text-t5pe, Greek

1.Introduction Thedeicticmotionverbs"come" and "go"2havebeena constantpart of the descriptionof we focusonthe Greekverberxome'come'aiming deixisinnaturallanguages.Inthispaper, to provide both an adequatedescription and an explanatory account of its deictic componentof meaning.We further examinesystematicallycertain usesthat are directly relatedandderivablefrom the deicticmeaning.Finally, we look at someextendedusesthat, althoughnot deictic, ffioy be still relatableto the person-deixiscomponentof erxome. Contraryto the assumptionin someof the earlierliterature(cf. Miller and Johnson Laird1976)to the effect that the deictic verbs"come" and"go" aresemanticuniversals,we conditions for erxome(and its showthat even at the level of the basic appropriateness systemiccounterpartpijeno 'go') thereare significantdifferencesfrom other languages.In agreement with themorerecentliterature(Fillmore 1983;Wilkins andHill 1995;Goddard ' We would like to thank Sophia Marmaridou, Maria Sifianou and an anonymous reviewer for their comments.We also thank Eleni Leondaridi for help with the Spanish data. 'Throughout this paper we will be using the English words in quotes to refer to the concepts of comrngand going, while the italicized forms refer to the actual verb forms in each language.

274

Eleni Antonopoulou and Kiki Nikifuridou

analysesofthe deicticmotion verbs l99l),we alsosuggestthat detailedlanguage-specific in different languages are absolutely essential before we arrive at any meaningful generalizations,since differencesin the basic semanticsof theseverbs have significant for the rangeandtype of further uses.Moreover,we arguethat not only does consequences idiosyncrasiesbut its distributionis also affectedby erxomeexhibit language-specific specific text types which sanctioncertain usesand prime the occurrenceof erxomeas opposedto pijeno. Basedon an analysisof extensiveco{pusdata,we identifuthecoreappropriateness conditions for erxomeand we showhow thesearerelatedto and motivateboth the directly derivableand the non-deicticuses.We suggestthat suchusesare not randombut lend themselvesto generalizationsand a principled description.In particular,we arguethat erxomeis a conventionalmeansof adoptingperspectiveand that an explanatoryaccount of these uses amounts to a principled descriptionof the factors that influence the choice to identify with a particular individual or construea particular speaker's/narrator's placeas significantlysalient. In looking at the deictic,perspectivaland non-deicticusesof erxome,our aim is three-fold: a)

b)

c)

We show that the emergenceof patternsin the distribution and useof erxome and rely indeedon a detailedanalysis the possibility of any significant generalizations of its meaning, sensitive both to language-specificand text-specific charactenzations. We highlight the role of the notions of subjectivity and subjectificationin usesof erxome.Inthe cognitiveliterature motivatingthe adoption-of-perspective we discussand in particularin the work of Langacker,subjectivityrepresentsthese aspectsof the semanticsof a word which are firmly groundedinto pragmatics;it can, therefore, naturally accommodatethe uses of erxome which involve the implicit presenceat the sceneor the eventandher identification speaker's/narrator's with a particularvantagepoint. We argue that even elementaryexplanatoryadequacyfor such data can only be achievedifthe governingconditionsforthe distributionoferxomeareinformedby semantic,pragmatic and discoursal/textualinformation and have accessto the correspondinglevelsof analysis.At the sametime, suchdataarguestrongly for the necessityof corpusanalysis.In casesthat involve construalby the speaker/narrator of aparticularsituationin aparticularwayandthechoiceof erxomevs.pijenodoes not result in ungrammaticality,the occurrenceof erxomecan neverthelessbe predicted on the basis of certain factors that we identiff and discuss.Such predictions are howevermeaninglessin the absenceof frequencycountsand textanalysisnot simplydesirablebut absolutely sensitivepatterns,makingcorpus-based essential.

2. Appropriateness conditions for erxomeand systemicrelation to pijeno It hasbeencommonpracticeto examinethe meaningof "come"togetherwith that of "go",

Deictic motion and the adoption of perspective in Greek

275

treatingthetwo verbsin variouslanguagesas complementary. This practiceis evidentin dictionarydefinitions(e.g.OED, Cobuild)whereoneof theseverbsis definednegatively with respectto the other, as well as in the linguistic analysesoffered,most notably, for Englishcome andgo. Fillmore (1966, 1975, 1982,1983)is typical of this trend while Goddard(1997) for English and Wilkins and Hill (1995) for Mparntwe Arrernte and Longgualsoco-examine"come" and "go" without howeverdefining one in termsof the other.Theseanalysesdiffer asto whethertheyattributedeicticsemantics to "go" (cf. Miller andJohnson-Laird1976;Fillmore 1982,1983)or not (Goddard1997;Wilkins and Hill 1995).Indeed,we found this distinctionuseful for Greekas well (we returnto this point lateron in this section).Looking at the semantics-pragmatics of erxome,we alsofound it inevitableto examine its meaning together with that of pijeno, since their domains of application appearto be complementaryand certainaspectsof their respectivemeanings arebestapproached in the contextof their systemicopposition(cf. alsoWilkins and Hill 1995).Beforediscussingsomeof the factorswhich figure cruciallyin the usesof erxome, weneedto review briefly someof the basicinsightsin the previousliterature. Fillmore(1966, 1975, 1982, 1983) is to our knowledgethe first to discussin considerable detailthe meaningof comeandgo. The conditionsaccountingfor the central meaningof comearebasicallythat the speakeror the addressee is at the goal of motion at utterance or at arrival time, while for go it is simply assumedthat the speakeris not located atthegoalat the time of the utterance.Extendedusesof coze, asin (1) and (2) (1) (2\

I cameto the front door to let you in, but you had alreadyleft. She'llcomehomewith me.

arehandledby further conditions to the effect that for come it can be assumedthat the speaker or the addressee is making the samejourney (example(2)) or that the goal is the locationof the speaker/addressee at the time of arrival(example(l)). Yet other "expected" conditions(transferringthe effect of the previousonesin reportedspeechor third-person discourse) accountfor the presenceof comein exampleslike (3) and (4):

(3) (4)

SheaskedFred if I could cometo his party. Themen cameinto her bedroom.

In particular with respectto (4), which indicatesthat thepoint of view is the locationof the personinsidethe bedroom,Fillmorenotesthat in the type of discoursewherethe identity plays no role, the narratoris free to choose andlocationof the speaker(or addressee) point of view andthis is what sanctionsthe useof come. another character's It is exactly this shift of perspectiveor deictic projectionwhich is disputedin Goddard(1997). He suggeststhat both the cross-linguisticvariation in the extent of projectedusesfor "come"andthe impossibilityof deicticallyprojecting"here" deictically and"now" (we take up this point in section3.1) argueagainstthe existenceof such an "inherenthuman capacity" (Goddard 1997:158). Rather than restricting the central meaningof cometo the purely deictic contextsand then extendthe rangeof useswith furtherconditions,Goddardproposesa single definition for comeand anotherone for go, which,he suggests, can coverall their respectiveuses.In both definitionshe includesthe elementof intentionality (willful motion), but he acknowledgesan "egocentricity"

276

Eleni Antonopoulou and Kiki Nikiforidou

differencebetweengo andcome,sincethe definitionof come(but not that ofgo) includes a referenceto the speaker:"Someonein this placecould think: X is in the sameplace as me", where "someone"may be the speaker,the addressee, or a third person,whose actual identity is left opento be inferredfrom the context(Goddard1997:159).It is this part of the definition which accountsfor the subjectivepoint of view in the meaningof come atd distinguishesit from go. Sharedby both analysesis the observationthat comeis a goal-orientedverb in the sensethat the destinationof motion is generallyknown from context.Expectedly,this is true of erxomeaswell. Nowherehoweveris theremadean explicit connectionbetweenthe "givenness"ofthe goal andthe locationof the speaker.It is, we suggest,crucialto notethat if the speakeror the addresseeis part of the goal, and in this sensepart of the profile3of the motion event coded by the verb, then predictablythis goal is necessarilyknown as the locationof the speaker.In this iies the initial motivationfor the consistent,andapparently cross-linguistic,correlation(cf. Gathercole1977;Wilkins andHill 1995)between"come" and known destination.Also sharedby all previous analysesis the observationthat both purely deicticuses(towardsspeakeror addressee) andnon (or less)deicticones(towards a third person) are availableto Enghsh come but also to "come" cross-linguistically, regardlessof whether they are accountedfor by separateconditions or by one inclusive definition. Indeed,it is exactly the extentof suchusesof erxomewhich has originally motivatedour interestin this work. Before taking up suchusesin section3, we needto addressthe central,purely deictic meaningof erxome. conditions for erxome,it is clear Turning now to someof the core appropriateness that the domain of applicationof this verb is more extendedthanthat of English come, and wherehighly specificpragmatic considerablymore extendedthan in Spanishor Japanese restrictionsgovernthe distributionof "come" (cf. Lyons 1977;Goddard1997). Besides, it is more extendedin a way consistentwith the centralplace of the speakerand her cognitivesaliencein the semanticsof erxome.Considerfor example(5): (5)

0a

pas4

sinema?s

FUT you-go-PEM cinema "Are you going to the movies?" In contrastto the English translationwhich can be usedin a contextwherethe speakeris alsogoing - in the casewherethe speakerwishesto distanceherselffrom her interlocutor with apossiblyrudeeffect(cf. Brown andLevinson1987:I22) - thequestionin Greekcan

3 In Langacker's Cognitive Grammar (see selectively Langacker 1987, lggl,200l), the profile is the entity designated by a semantic structure. It is a substructurewithin the base (the background frame in more traditional terms) which is obligatorily accessedand functions as the focal point within the scene.For erxome, since the speaker or the addressee(at least in the central deictic uses) is at the goal of motion, they are necessarilyprofiled, and as such they receive a specialdegreeof prominence. a Certain perfective forms of pijeno are taken on by the form pao (see also example (6)). 5 Mod"* Greek examples are written in a broad phonetic transcription. Examples from the New Testament and Alexander's Narration in 3.2 are written in the Greek alphabet.In the glosses,FUT stands for Future, PERF for Perfective aspect,IMP for Imperfective aspect and DIM for Diminutive.


277

only be usedin a context in which the speakeris not going to the movies aswell. In other words,this kind of distancingfunction which is availableto Englishgo, is not availableto Greekpijeno. This amounts to saying that the speakerin Greek, if she is (or, in this example,will be) actually part of the motion event, she is obliged to declare her involvementby using erxome(and, conversely,restricting the use of pijeno to the effect thatthespeakercannotbe at the goal of motion eitherat utteranceor at arrival time) . In the sameline,consider(6): l.

spiti)? mazi su (ce na m afisis ??boro na pao I-can to I-go-PERF with you (and to me you-drop home) "CanI go with you (andbe droppedoff at home)?"

theEnglishtranslationisappropriatein acontextwherethespeakermerelywishes Whereas to leavea party (with the addressee)and be droppedoff at her home, in the samecontext the Greekexample is unacceptableas it would require the use of erxome.Since the in this caseis involved in the motion event,a Greek speakerwould have to addressee this by sayingsomethinglike (7): "acknowledge" 2.

boro na er9o

mazi su

(ce na m afisis

spiti)?

I-canto I-come-PERFwith you (and to me you-drop home) "CanI comewith you (andbe droppedoff at home)?" which, accordingto Fillmore (1982, Noticethat example(7) expressesaccompaniment an extensionfrom the centralconditionsfor comesincein suchcontexts 1983),represents comecuralternatewith go. In Greek,however,if the speakeror addresseeis making the samejoumey then their presencemust be explicitly marked by the use of erxome,thus obligatoryconditionsof this verb. extending involvementandin this Erxomeis thereforepositively markedfor speaker/addressee senseit is more deictic or deictically anchoredthan pijeno. Langacker'stheory of andsubjectification(seeselectivelyLangacker1990,1993,1997)is onetheory subjectivity that allows for degreesin the deictic anchoringof words distinguishing, for example, betweenexpressionslike yesterday,tomorrow andlast year on the one hand (where the ground(speechsetting) remainsoffstage as an implicit/unprofiled referencepoint), and like l,you, here andnow otthe other(in which somefacetof the groundis put expressions on stageandprofiled).Subtleas this may be, we suggestthat this is an apt descriptionof thedifferencebetweenerxome(wherethe speaker,aswe havenoted,is profiled aspart of thegoal) andpijeno (where the speaker'snot being at the goal is understoodto be part of This is exactly the difference that may be obscuredby defining thebase/background). pijenonegativelyin deicticterms,as for instancein Fillmore's1983definitionof English go ("thespeakeris not locatedat the goal at the time of the utterance"),on a par with the deicticconditionsfor erxome.Instead,we wish to claim that an appropriatedescriptionfor thedeicticcomponentof pijeno shouldspecifythat it is part of thebackgroundandnot part of theprofiled motion event (that is, the speakeris evidently not at the goal but sheneed notbeat the sourceor the path of motion either).The deicticaspectof pijeno (speakeris notphysicallyat the goal) is not howevereasilycancellableasa backgroundedcomponent whichsuggeststhat it may be aptly characterizedas a presuppositionalcomponent of

278


meaning6.So (8), for example,is predictablyodd: (8)

??pijenun sinema ce ime c eyo eci they-go-IMP cinema and I-am and I there "They are going to the movies and I am also there"

The differencein the deictic characterof pijeno (with respectto erxome)correlates with anotherdifferencebetweenpijeno and its English counterpart.Contrary to what Fillmore (1983)suggestsfor go (with which Goddardseemsto agree), pijeno is not really a source-oriented verb. In other words, it is not that the sourceof motion is known and retrievablefrom context (which is naturally relatedto the fact that the speakerfor pijeno may but need not be at the source),but rather that the sourceis understoodas being irrelevantto the specificspeechevent.So, for example,(9) is weird because,asFillmore suggests,the sourceis takento be a placeknown from context:

(e)

??Wheredid he go from?

But example(10) is weird simplybecausethe sourceis irrelevant.If it wererelevant,Greek speakerswould use an inceptiveverb like/evyo "leaye",ksekinao"start"etc. (10)

pije? ??apo pu from where he-went-PERF "From wheredid he go?"7

involvement in the motion So far we have shown that the speaker's/addressee's eventmust be declaredwith the useof erxome,thus extendingthe obligatory contextsfor erxomeat the expenseof pijeno. We have also suggestedthat the differencein deictic anchoringbetween erxome andpijeno can be viewed in terms of a differencebetween profile and base(foregroundedvs. backgroundedinformation),the profile including the for erxome(but not for pijeno). A final conditionwhich is typically speaker/addressee associatedwith erxomeis that the initiative or "responsibility"for the motion event lies with the speakerwho is/was/willbe at the goalof motion;in this sense,erxomecanbe said to express"guided","controlled"or even"coerced"motion by the subject-mover.So, for example,(11) (1 1)

er9un 0a FUT they-come-PERF

sinema? cinema

6 Although this analysis is only proposed for Greek, the suggesteddifference in "deicticness" betweenerxomeandpijenotalliesbothwithGoddards(1997)descriptionofgoasanessentiallynon-deictic verb and with Wilkins and Hill's (1995) claim that the deictic component of "go" in certain languages is at best a pragmatic implicature arising from its systemic contrast with "come" (even though in Greek it appears to be more of a presupposition than an implicatwe). TExample (10) is acceptable only if it is interpreted as a question about the itinerary that was followed but not about the source of the journey.

Deictic rnotion and the adoption of perspective in Greek

279

"Are they coming to the movies?" whereerxomeis sanctionedby the speakermakingthesamejourney, imposesa construal in whichthe speaker,as opposedto the movers(codedby the subjectof er1un),has the irutiativeoftheproposedmotion. Thisprovidesanaturalmotivationforthe accompaniment useof erxomegiven the centralconditions.That is, the centralconditionof the speaker beingat the goal extendsto the speakerhavingthe initiative (literally or metaphorically) in themotionevent,motivatingthe accompaniment use(theotherperson(s)follow(s)).So (11)clearlyconveysthat it is the speaker'sdecisionto go to the moviesandthe question is whether"they" (i.e. the subjectof erQun)are alsogoing (evenif the plan is for them to arrivefirst).Interestingly,Fillmore(1983)doesnot mentionthis at all in the conditionsfor come,whileGoddard(1997: 155,159)treatsit asbeingequallyrelevantfor come andgo, since"X wantedto be somewhereelse"appearsin thedefinitionsof both verbs.For Greek, however,willful/intentional motion appearsto be associated with the subjectof pijeno morethanwith the subjectof erxome.Sidesteppingthe issueof whethersucha condition is actuallypart of the lexical semanticsof erxome(and correspondinglyof pijeno) or whetherit constitutesa pragmatic(and thus cancellable)implicature,we shouldnote that thisdifferenceis actually reflectedin the fixed and metaphoricalexpressionsinvolving thesetwo verbs.A perusaleven of such expressionsshowsthat inanimatesubjectsare predominant with erxome.Consider,for example,(12a) in fixed andfigurativeexpressions and(12b)vs. (12c)and(12d): (l2a\ mu erxete zalaia to-me it-comes-IMP diziness "l'm gettingdizzy" (12b) erxete vroxi it-comes-IMPrain "Rainis coming" (l2c) pijeno kondra I-go-IMP against(someoneor something) "I go against(someoneor something)" (12d) prjeno peripato I-go-IMP walk "I am going for a walk" If thedeicticconditionsalreadydiscussedwere the only relevantonesfor the distribution of pijeno anderxome, then we would expect figurative usesand fixed expressionswith inanimate subjectsto be equallydividedbetweenerxomeandpijeno,which howeveris not thecase8. 8This particular condition is reminiscent of the condition governing the use of Spanish venir'come' which is highly restricted. In Spanish, the natural responseto (i), for example, is (ii) with ir'go': (D (the lady is calling her maid) Amanda, ven aqui. "Amanda, come here!" (iil Si,voy. "Yes, I am going." If, however,the lady keeps calling insistently (thus frushating Amanda), Amanda may respond with (iii): (iii) Ya,vengo. "Yes, I'm coming".

280

EleniAntonopoulou andKikiNikifuridou

Llke come,erxomeextendsthereforeto all contextscoveredby Fillmore's(1983) conditions and by Goddard's(1997) definition. Like come,erxomecan expressmovement towardsthe speaker/addressee at utteranceor at arrival time, towardsthe speaker'sor the addressee's expectedor proper location at arival time, andit canexpressthe movementof someoneaccompanyingthe speakeror the addresseein the motion event.Unlike come, however, (for which the obligatory contextsare definedby the first two conditionsonly), all these represent obligatory contexts for erxome to the extent that they involve the physicalpresencein the motion event; in Greek,aswe showed, speakerrs or the addressee's physicalpresence cannotbe left implicit but it hasto beexpressed the speaker's/addressee's by erxomerestricting, by the sametoken, the contextsfor pijeno. Erxome(like come) can alsobe usedwhen any of the conditionsaboveis transferredto the speakeror the addressee of a reportedcommunicationact,asin (13),althoughin thesecasesthereis clearlya choice betweenerxomeandpijeno: (13)

to betro an 0a borusa na er)o rotise sto parti tu she-askedthe Peter if FUT I-could to I-come-PERFto-theparty his "She askedPeterif I could cometo his party"

Finally, we suggestedthat erxomeis also charactenzedby the "initiative" of the motion event being with the speaker(as opposedto the mover). While the speaker/addressee involvementbeing obligatorilydeclaredis clearlypart of the lexicalsemanticsof erxome, it is possible that the initiative aspectmay be a pragmaticimplicature, albeit a typical, systematicone. We havenot yet saidanythingaboutthe usesof erxomewhich areanalogousto the usesof comecoveredby Fillmore's(1983) final conditionto the effectthat in pure third persondiscourse(i.e. in discoursein which the locationof the speakerand the addressee plays no role), the narratoris free to choosea point of view, so that movementtoward the placeor personwhosepoint of view is chosencanbe expressed wrth come(Fillmore 1983: 226)e.Inthenext section,we intendto showthatthesekinds of usesof the verberxomeare amenableto generalizations.In other words, there are certain pragmatic, textual and discoursalfactors, which independentlymotivate the narator's choiceto identiff with a particularpoint of view (asopposedto another)and assuchcanbe saidto predict (or, more conservatively,to prime) the appearanceof third personerxome.

As our Spanish-speaking informants tell us, (iii) implies that Amanda is being "dragged" and it is more likely than not that this answer is not meant for the lady to hear. e It is possible, as Goddard (1997) suggests,that even such extended subjective uses can be subsumedunder a single lexical definition like the one he proposes for come, thus obviating the need for an "inherent human capacity for deictic projection". We intend to show however that such uses are sensitive to factors which are general and systematicenough to warrant description, but which are not easily incorporated into a lexical definition.


281

3. Adoption of perspective:Motivating factors We investigatedthird-personusesof erxomein a corpus of Modern Greek literature, a collectionof folk tales, studentessaysof fourth-graders,and the ILSP corpusr0,which consistsof different gemesincluding literature,newspapersand scientific texts (thesewe in 3.1).In orderto be ableto tracediachronicdevelopment,albeitpartly, we also discuss lookedat the use of third personforms in the New Testamentand an early Greek text of folk nanative,discussedin3.2(thecorpusis listedin the appendix).As expected,erxome in its extendedusesappearsonly in sometypes of texts andin certaingenresmore than in others,while being practically absentfrom newspapersand scientific discourse(we retum to thispoint later). The corpushas been examinedfocusingprimarily on literal uses,that is contexts whichinvolvephysicalchangeof location.Needlessto saythat any investigationaiming at completenessmust eventually include the metaphorical uses and even the fixed patternswith erxomewhich aboundin all texts. Our goal hasbeentwo-fold: collocational First,to identiff someof the factorsthat favor the useof erxome(asopposedtopijeno) in all textsand,secondly,to keeptrack ofthe relative frequencyof suchusesin different types oftextsand,wherepossible,determinethe relativeimportanceofthese factorsfor different texts. In all the exampleswe discussin this section,substitutingpijeno for erxome does not of courseresult in ungrammaticality.It is, however,significant that the factorswhich choicestatisticallyprime the occurrence we identifyasrelevantto the speaker's/narrator's of erxome,andin caseswhere more than one factorsconverge,the appearanceof erxome ln this sense,the freechoiceof thenarratorin Fillmore's( 1983) exceptionless. ispractically conditionis not reallv free.

3.1.Empatheticdeixis in Modern Greek texts In theuseswe discussin this sectionneither speakernor addresseeare objectively part of theevent.A typical exampleis (14): (14)

kapjios episkeptis sto otel de danmark tin epomeni ir9e to-the hotel de danmark he-came-PERF some visitor thenext "Thenext day avisitor came to the DanemarkHotel" (ILSP Greekco{pus, 109033 1) .

Theonly one objectively presentat the hotel is the Marquis de Sadewhoseperspectiveis beingadoptedby the narrator.Before discussingsuchcasessystematically,we would like to suggestthat one way of approaching such uses is to view them as instances of subjectificationin Langacker'ssense( 1990, 1991, 1993, 1997). Langacker'sanalysisrelies on the possibility of construing a particular entity or situation either subjectively or objectively.If somethingis construedwith maximal objectivity, then it is salientby virtue in section2, of beingput on stageasthe focusof attentionandprofiled.As we suggested

r0This is the corpus compiled by the Institute for Language and SpeechProcessing in Greece.

282

Eleni Antonopoulou and Kiki Nikifuridou

in the central, deictic meaning of erxome the speakeror the addresseeare part of the predicate'sprofile, asoneof themcoincideswith the goalof themotion eventcodedby the verb; they are thereforeconstruedwith maximal objectivity. In uses such as those exemplifiedin (1a) and in all the examplesthat follow, the speaker/narrator hasgone,so to speak,off stage,sincesheis no longerthe deictic anchor.However, simply by adopting someoneelse'sperspective,the narratoris implicitly "present"at the scenefunctioning no longer as the objective landmarkof motion but as the invisible observerperforming a "mentalscanning"(in Langacker'stermsagain)of the sceneor the event.The objectively construed participant of the central meaning has been replaced by the conceptualtzerlnartalorwho reports or narrates from another person's perspective, construingthe eventsubjectively". we have of subjectification, Ifthe extendedusesof erxomeareanalyzedasinstances a possibleexplanationfor the fact that suchcasesarepracticallyabsentfrom joumalistic and scientificdiscoursewhere implicit adoptionof perspectiveis a priori undesirabler2. Obviously this is not meant as implying that reportersor scholarsare incapableof bias (anythingbut asa matterof fact),but that they will consciouslyavoidlinguistic choicesthat will be conventionallyrecognizedbyreadersas adoptionof perspective. Not surprisingly,one factor that is instrumentalin the choiceof perspectiveacross different text types is the main figure of the story, the protagonistaroundwhom the story revolves(and in this sense,example(14) is a very characteristicone). In the type of discoursecalledfree indirect style,this is typically the third personsubjectwho hasbecome (Brinton 1995:183;Adamson1995:208; Wright 1995: the "subjectof consciousness" 156). Free indirect discourse is commonly understoodin literary studies as the that is as involving narrationof consciousness of eventsin consciousness, representation rather than speechor perception. It is standardlyassociatedwith a literary technique characterizingthe 19thcentury@nglish)novel (althoughit is also tracedback to earlier literature),and distinguishedfrom empatheticdeixis which is taken to be a "sporadic featureof ordinarylanguageuse"(Adamson1995:2t2).In literarystudies,suchasthe ones with proximaltime andplaceadverbials mentionedabove,empatheticdeixisis associated (i.e. now andhere) appearingin free indirect discourseas modifiersof pasttenseverbs. is realizedthroughthe "was - now" of eventsin consciousness Hencethis representation constructionor the historicpresent.A typical exampleis providedby Brinton (1995:185),

I' An analogoussubjectiveshift is consideredby Langacker(1990: 19) to occur in the meaning of the verb go in examples(i) and (ii): (i) The hiker went up the hill. (ii)The highway goes all the way from the valley to the hilltop. In (ii), unlike (i), there is no objective motion; the highway obviously occupies all points on the path simultaneously without going anywhere. What is "going" is the eye of the implicit viewer/conceptualizer who traces a mental path in a particular direction, from a particular perspective. l2

This is in accordancewith Bella's (2001) findings that in newspapersproximal place deictics and historic present, that is grammatical markers that have been consistently associated with adoption of perspective and empathy (see the discussion on the free indirect style below), occur almost exclusively in captrons.


283

illustratingthe most characteristiclinguisticmarkersof free indirectdiscourse13: ( l5)

Neverhad sheimaginedshecould look like that, Is motherright? shethought.And now shehopedher motherwas right. (Mansfield,The GardenParty)

Both in the caseof a specificnarrativestyle and in that of ordinarylanguageuse (ratherthanreported)or, in Lyons(1977)terms,the asexperienced eventsarerepresented discourse referentis construedas the discourseagent(i.e. the speaker/narrator). It is this typeof construalwhich allowsin eithercasethe useof deicticadverbialsofproximity and, in ourcase,the useof erxome,which signalsproximity to speaker(as it involvesmotion towards herlocation),evenif objectivelythe goalof motionis not the speaker/narrator but themainfigure/protagonist of the narratedevent. Expectedly,all the extensionsthathold for the speaker's or the addressee's location in thecentralusesof erxome are also availableto the main figure; just as erxomecan be present,habitualor expectedlocation,the sanctioned by the speaker'sor the addressee's useof thirdpersonformsmay be sanctionedby theprotagonist'slocationat the time of the nanatedeventor his/her habitualor expectedlocation.Consider,for example,(16) and

(r7):

(16) simera to proi

i

mama irQe

sto

Somatio me

tis paljatsures

with the old-stuff today the morning the mum she-came-PERF to-the room "Thismorningmum cameto the room with the old stuff' (Nestlinger/Kasi1984:92) (1i)

c apo and from na rxonde

pano na qis top to you-have c aftes

ce ti jaja and the grandma sto stoder

ce ti 9ia alici and the aunt alike

to they-come-IMP and they to-the Stoder "And on top of everythingyou have grandmaand aunt Alice coming to Stoder aswell" (Nestlinger/I(asi 1984:118) In Nestlinger's story,the protagonistis Sue,a thirteen-yearold whosestory is being told by theauthor.In (16), the room referredto in the sentenceis Sue'sroom and sheis in that roomat thetime of the event(hermother'sarrival).In (17), Stoderis not yet the location ofthemaincharacter,Sue,but it will be by the time of grandma'sand aunt Alice's arrival, thereforethe protagonist'sexpectedlocation.In example(18) the presenceof constituting is sanctionedby the habituallocationof theprotagonist;the referentof "he" is the erxome newcolleaguein the ministry wherethe protagonistworks: (18) apo ti merapu ir1e benoujenun koritsopula from the day that he-came-PERF they-enter-exit girls-DlM "Sincethe day he came,young girls go in and out" (Kontoleon2000: 13)

ll

Adu*ron (1995: 199) also notes that one of the most commonly cited indicatorsof empathetic nanativeis "the choice of the proximal option in the adverbial" in conjunction with past tense.

284


It is alsoclearthatsometimesthird-personerxomecanbeusedto expressmovement towardsa location which is neitherthe present,nor the habitualor the expectedlocation of with her andhaslocalprominence(andas such theprotagonistbut is somehowassociated yet anothercontext).Considerfor example(19), represents (19)

ce ergete vlepi to japi the sulis he-comes-IMP and he-seesthe construction "Soulis comes(everynow and then) and seesthe constructionsite" (Kontoleon 2000:87)

o sulis

wherethe constructionreferredto is a housebeingbuilt by theprotagonistwho is not there necessarilyevery time Soulisvisits the site. The global protagonistcanbe at times overriddenby a locally salientcharacter,that is a particular characteraround which the story revolves in the immediately preceding context.Consider,for instance,(20) and (21): (20) o mayazatoras c

o jos tu erxonte

na voi9isun to xasapi

the shop-owner and the sonhis they-come-IMPto they-helpthe butcher "The shopowner and his soncome to help the butcher" (NestlingerA(asi i 9 8 4 :i 7 3 ) 6i (21) ir)e i mama tis poles fores na ti c she-came-PERFand the mother her many times to her she-sees "Her mothertoo came to seeher many times" (Zei 1987:295) Theprotagonist,Sue, locally asthetopicof theparagraph. In (20) thebutcheris established is watchingthe scenefrom a distance,so it is as if sheis adoptingthe perspectiveof the local protagonist(the butcheras opposedto the shopowner).The samekind of "double adoption"(the narratoradoptsthe perspectiveadoptedby the main character)is effectedin (21), where "her mother" refersto the mother of the locally establishedmain figure to whom the global protagonist(Achilleas'fianc6einZeils novel) refers atthat point. The location implicitly understoodhere is Switzerland,establishedas the goal of motion through being the locus of the locally main frgure at the time of the motion event (neither the main protagonistnor, of course,the narratorare there at the time of the narration).In fact, thereis no indication that Switzerlandis in anyway connectedwith the narratoror the protagonistat all. implicit thatsubjectification,thatis thespeaker's/author's So farwe havesuggested choice to identify with a particular point of view can be seenas contributingto the coherenceof a text, structuring discourseand distinguishingbetweenglobal and local topicsra.In all the examplesdiscussed(and quite systematicallyacrosstext types), the

ra Subjectivity is already noted in Sweetserand Fauconnier (1996) as one of the things that can be seen as structuring discourse.Let us also note a related claim by Pander Maat and Sanders(2001) that subjectivity - that is the degree of speakerinvolvement - is relevant to the distribution of causal connectives, motivating again a different kind of discoursecoherence.Finally the cognitive notion of subjectivity underlies Mushin's (2001) analysis of evidentiality and epistemologicalstancein narrativeretelling.


285

author'suseof third personerxomeis motivatedby the narrator'sidentification with the point of view of the protagonist,except in caseswhere a locally main figure takes precedence, having been previously establishedas the immediate topic. The locally prominentfigure'sperspectivemay be adoptedby the global protagonistfirst and through him/herbythe narrator,as in the examplesdiscussed,or it may be directly adoptedby the narrator,asin (22), where the wife is clearly the local topic: (22)

pos 6en ercete i jineka aftunu san i6e o andras tis, thewife his when she-sawthat not he-comes-IMPthe husbandher pat

ston

a\elfo tu ce

tu

lei...

she-goes-PERF to-thebrotherhis and to-him she-says... "His wife, when shesawthat her husbandwasnot coming, shegoesto his brother andsays.,."(Folk tales1979:287) Fillmore's(1983)point that in a carefullyconstructedstory onewould not expect the perspectiveto change freely applies to the novels and the plays in our corpus. Expectedly, however,in the folk tales,the shift of perspectiveis much more frequentand thenanator(s) rely more heavilyon the techniqueof adoptingthe perspectiveof a locally salientfigure,who is different at different points of the story. Cross-cuttingthe protagonist and the local protagonist factors (which are thesalientones)is anotherparameterwhich,in very preciselydefinedcontexts, statistically canoverwritethesalienceofthe main figure'sperspective. This is exemplifiedin (23),(24) and(25): (23) lei sti stt na rQi mesajati styura she-says to-the Sueto she-come-PERF in because certainly 0 arpal