Search

This essay adopts a stylistic approach to delineate the various—and varying—pragmatic effects inherent in the use and interactions of pronouns in Ford's war prose. Ford's singular use of pronouns is shown to be instrumental in his practice of literary impressionism. In particular, the omnipresent second person is granted a variety of referents that coexist along a "continuum of reference" (as defined by Bettina Kluge), from a "you" that is speaker-oriented to one that is addressee-oriented. Sorlin's intersection of Kluge's continuum with a gradient from personalisation to generalisation (2022) is illuminating when examining the manifold significance of Ford's use of the second person, as it brings to light its ethical impact. Ford's war essays shift from the general to the particular and from the collective to the individual in a manner that opposes propaganda rhetorics. Furthermore, the gradient established by Sandrine Sorlin to account for the pragmatic effect of "you" also proves remarkably useful when applied to the pronoun "one". Scrutinising the interplay between these various pronouns allows us to investigate the multifarious relationships that Ford establishes in his war essays between the persona, the reader, those he often called "my men", and the collective ethos of wartime Britain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considered an autobiographical sketch like "Sunday at Home," and "The Village Uncle: An Imaginary Retrospect," "The Haunted Mind" is singular in the way it is narrated. Unlike the other two sketches, which both have a first-person narrator, "The Haunted Mind" is told in the second person—a rather original choice at the time Hawthorne was writing and clearly an "arresting narrative experiment," as Michael Dunne puts it. For a 1994 issue of Style, Monica Fludernik put together a list of second-person narratives that makes it clear that Hawthorne was innovative when he set out to write "The Haunted Mind" and publish it in 1835. Hawthorne's sketch is thus "the first 'real' case of a second-person text in the modern sense of the term," and clearly the very first short text to make use of the second person. From the way it is designed, the text is akin to dramatic monologue in that it conjures up ghosts and introduces an other you through dream visions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Études de Stylistique Anglaise is the property of Societe de Stylistique Anglaise and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

It has been recognized that Mandarin speakers use the neutral form (ni) and the honorific form (nin) of second-person pronouns to refer to others based on the social distance and power dynamics between the speakers. Drawing on eighteen hours of journalist-government official conversations in live broadcast TV programs, this study shows that the journalists often shift between the two forms of second-person pronouns when referring to government officials and that the shifts in the two directions appear in different sequential environments. Incorporating the stance triangle model and membership categorization devices, the findings reveal that the shifts indicate changes in the journalists' self-categorization and their evaluative stances toward the officials in the conversation. The shift from nin to ni tends to occur in the main actions where the interviewer has previously displayed a positive stance but shifts to a negative stance while holding the official accountable; the shift from ni to nin is often used rhetorically to help construct the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of the officials, which also indicates a negative stance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Scientific Journal of King Faisal University, Humanities & Management Sciences is the property of Association of Arab Universities and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This essay adopts a stylistic approach to delineate the various—and varying—pragmatic effects inherent in the use and interactions of pronouns in Ford’s war prose. Ford’s singular use of pronouns is shown to be instrumental in his practice of literary impressionism. In particular, the omnipresent second person is granted a variety of referents that coexist along a “continuum of reference” (as defined by Bettina Kluge), from a “you” that is speaker-oriented to one that is addressee-oriented. Sorlin’s intersection of Kluge’s continuum with a gradient from personalisation to generalisation (2022) is illuminating when examining the manifold significance of Ford’s use of the second person, as it brings to light its ethical impact. Ford’s war essays shift from the general to the particular and from the collective to the individual in a manner that opposes propaganda rhetorics. Furthermore, the gradient established by Sandrine Sorlin to account for the pragmatic effect of “you” also proves remarkably useful when applied to the pronoun “one”. Scrutinising the interplay between these various pronouns allows us to investigate the multifarious relationships that Ford establishes in his war essays between the persona, the reader, those he often called “my men”, and the collective ethos of wartime Britain.

This article focuses on the choice of the second-person pronoun in Paul Auster’s autobiographical work, Report from the Interior (2013). Unusual in the genre, this article demonstrates that it serves several functions within the economy of the narration but also across it (in its reaching out to the reader). Sliding between different potential referents as is the case in traditional “you novels,” the pronoun is always on the verge on merging into the first or third person pronoun, while assuming its addressivity at all times. Dislodging the ‘I’ from its egocentric position, it also enables different intersubjective frames to co-exist, in keeping with Auster’s conception of life-writing as inevitably fragmented and non-linear. As argued, the pronoun is a metaleptic “space-opener”, opening the autobiographer’s mental space for the reader to share as a “by-sider”: the second-person pronoun is what ensures an ethical encounter of selves in the dialectic of singularity and solidarity/shareability that Auster’s work fosters.

This essay compares two novel forms that are separated by more than 250 years: Henry Fielding's Joseph Andrews , published in 1742, and Philippa Burne's hypertext fiction "24 Hours with Someone You Know," copyrighted in 1996. Using narratological, pragmatic, and cognitive tools and theories, the confrontation of the two distant texts aims to highlight that while "the ethics of the telling" is congruent with the "ethics of the told" in both stories (Phelan, "Rhetoric"), the texts differ in the pragmatic positioning of their audiences and the freedom that they seem to grant readers, thereby emphasizing the evolution of the author-reader relationship across centuries and media. The article shows to what extent digital fiction can be said to invite the active participation of the reader via the computer mouse/cursor. Meanwhile it exposes a paradox: although Joseph Andrews is a highly author-controlled narrative, guiding the reader's ethical interpretation of what is told, it seems to leave more "space" for the actual reader, while Burne's participatory framework, conveyed through a second-person pronoun that blurs the line between implied and actual audience, requires some "forced participation" (Walker) via the "virtual performatives" that hyperlinks represent. Finally, the specificity of "you" digital fiction as opposed to its print counterpart is theorized in two contrasted models of audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]