Book contents
- The Stylistics of ‘You’
- The Stylistics of ‘You’
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Table
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Theorising the ‘You Effects’
- PART I Singularising and Sharing
- PART II The Role of ‘You’ in the Writing of Traumatic Events
- Part III The Author–Reader Channel across Time, Gender, Sex and Race
- PART IV New Ways of Implicating Through the Digital Medium?
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 January 2022
Book contents
- The Stylistics of ‘You’
- The Stylistics of ‘You’
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures and Table
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Theorising the ‘You Effects’
- PART I Singularising and Sharing
- PART II The Role of ‘You’ in the Writing of Traumatic Events
- Part III The Author–Reader Channel across Time, Gender, Sex and Race
- PART IV New Ways of Implicating Through the Digital Medium?
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Stylistics of ‘You'Second-Person Pronoun and its Pragmatic Effects, pp. 234 - 250Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adamson, S. (2001). The rise and fall of empathetic narrative: A historical perspective on perspective. In van Peer, W. and Chatman, S., eds., New Perspectives on Narrative Perspective. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 83–99.Google Scholar
Allbritton, D. & Gerrig, R. J. (1991). Participatory responses in text understanding, Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 603–26.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. & Keenan, E. (1985). Deixis. In Shopen, T., ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–308.Google Scholar
Augustine, . (2008). Confessions, trans. Bourke, Vernon J., Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.Google Scholar
Auster, P. (2017). Conversations with I. B. Siegumfeldt: A Life with Words, New York: Seven Stories Press.Google Scholar
Avery, L. K. (2007). Vulnerable London: Narratives of Space and Affect in a Twentieth-Century Imperial Capital, Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. (2012). The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity, paperback ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (2014). Media-specific metalepsis in 10:01. In Bell, A., Ensslin, A. and Kristian, Hans, eds., Analyzing Digital Fiction. London: Routledge, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (2016). Interactional metalepsis and unnatural narratology, Narrative, 24(3), 294–310.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (In press). ‘You know, are you you?’: Being versus playing the second-person in digital fiction. In Iché, V. and Sorlin, S., eds., The Rhetoric of Literary Communication: From Classical English Novels to Contemporary Digital Fiction. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bell, A. & Ensslin, A. (2011). ‘I know what it was. You know what it was’: Second-person narration in hypertext fiction, Narrative, 19(3), 311–29.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Ensslin, A., Ciccoricco, D., Rustad, H., Laccetti, J. & Pressman, J. (2010). A[s]creed for digital fiction, Electronic Book Review. Online. https://electronicbookreview.com/essay/a-screed-for-digital-fiction/Google Scholar
Bell, A., Ensslin, A & Rustad, H. K. (2014). Analyzing Digital Fiction, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Ensslin, A., van der Bom, I. & Smith, J. (2018). Immersion in digital fiction: A cognitive empirical approach, International Journal of Literary Linguistics, 7(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15462/ijll.v7i1.105Google Scholar
Bell, A., Ensslin, A., van der Bom, I. & Smith, J. (2019). A reader-response method not just for you, Language and Literature, 28(3), 241–62.Google Scholar
Bernard, C. (2018). Matière à reflexion. Du corps politique dans la littérature et les arts visuels britanniques contemporains, Paris: Sorbonne Université Presses.Google Scholar
Birke, D. (2015). Author, authority and ‘authorial narration’: The eighteenth-century English novel as a test case. In Birke, D. and Köppe, T., eds., Author and Narrator: Transdisciplinary Contributions to a Narratological Debate. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 99–111.Google Scholar
Birke, D. (2016). Writing the Reader. Configurations of a Cultural Practice in the English Novel, Berlin, Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Birke, D. (2017). Authorial narration reconsidered. Eliza Haywood’s Betsy Thoughtless, Anonymous’ Charlotte Summers, and the problem of authority in the mid-eighteenth-century novel. In Steinby, L. and Mäkikali, A., eds., Narrative Concepts in the Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 161–176.Google Scholar
Birke, D. & Christ, B. (2013). Paratext and digitized narrative: Mapping the field, Narrative, 21(1), 65–87.Google Scholar
Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age, Boston, MA: Faber and Faber. Online. http://archives.obs-us.com/obs/english/books/nn/bdbirk.htm#HypGoogle Scholar
Black, S. (2005). Anachronism and the uses of form in Joseph Andrews, NOVEL: A Forum on Fiction, 38(2/3), 147–64.Google Scholar
Bonheim, H. (1983). Narration in the second person, Recherches Anglaises et Américaines, 16, 69–80.Google Scholar
Booth, W. C. (1988). The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1979). La Distinction. Critique sociale du jugement, Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Bouscaren, J. & Chuquet, J. (1987). Grammaire et textes anglais: Guide pour l’analyse linguistique, Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Bray, J., Gibbons, A. & McHale, B., eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Experimental Literature, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brewer, M. B. & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘We’? Levels of collective identity and self representations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 83–93.Google Scholar
Broeck, S. (2002). When light becomes white: Reading enlightenment through Jamaica Kincaid’s writing, Callaloo, 25(3), 821–43.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R., Augustyn, J. S. & Taylor, H. A. (2009). When you and I share perspectives: Pronouns modulate perspective taking during narrative comprehension, Psychological Science, 20(1), 27–32.Google Scholar
Brunyé, T. T., Ditman, T., Mahoney, C. R. & Taylor, H. A. (2011). Better you than I: Perspectives and emotion simulation during narrative comprehension, Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(5), 659–66.Google Scholar
Bühler, K. (1990 [1934]). Theory of Language: The Representational Function of Language, trans. Goodwin, D. F., Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Burroway, J. (2011). Writing Fiction: A Guide to Narrative Craft, 8th ed., New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Butte, G. (2004). I Know That You Know That I Know: Narrating Subjects from Moll Flanders to Marnie, Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Cailler, B. & Masoni Lacroix, C. (2017). Design et transmédia: Le croisement des disciplines de SHS, Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication. Online. DOI: 10.4000/rfsic.2694Google Scholar
Caracciolo, M. (2012). Fictional consciousness: A reader’s manual, Style, 46(1), 42–65.Google Scholar
Caracciolo, M. (2014). The Experientiality of Narrative: An Enactivist Approach, Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Caracciolo, M. (2016). Strange Narrators in Contemporary Fiction: Explorations in Readers’ Engagement with Characters, Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. (1998). Negation, ‘presupposition’ and the semantics/pragmatics distinction, Journal of Linguistics, 34(2), 309–50.Google Scholar
Charaudeau, P. (2008). Le discours propagandiste. Essai de typologisation. In Dorna, A., Quellien, J. and Simonnet, S., eds., La Propagande: Images, paroles et manipulation. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 11–26.Google Scholar
Chen, R. (2001). Self-politeness: A proposal, Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S., Boucher, H. C., & Tapias, M. P. (2006). The relational self revealed: Integrative conceptualization and implications for interpersonal life, Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 151–79.Google Scholar
Clarkson, C. (2005). Embodying ‘you’: Levinas and a question of the second person, Journal of Literary Semantics, 34, 95–105.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters, Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 245–64.Google Scholar
Cohn, D. (1978). Transparent Minds: Narrative Modes for Presenting Consciousness in Fiction, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. (2012). La relative transparence de l’hypallage: L’hypallage est-elle un trope?, Études de Stylistique Anglaise, 3, 44–60.Google Scholar
Collins, C. & Postal, P. M. (2012). Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Colthup, H. (2018). ‘You were all the world like a Beach to me’ The use of second-person address to create multiple storyworlds in literary video games: ‘Dear Esther’, a Case Study, International Journal of Transmedia Literacy, 4, 117–36. DOI: 10.7358/ijtl-2018-005-coltGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2012). Features, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornillon, C. (2018). Sérialité et Transmédialité. Infinis des fictions contemporaines, Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Cotte, P. (1991). L’hypallage ou la fausse attribution, TLE (Théorie, Littérature, Enseignement). Figuralité et cognition, 9, 79–95.Google Scholar
Cresti, E. & Moneglia, M., eds. (2005). C-ORAL-Rom: Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Romance Languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and Universals, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruise, J. (1987). Fielding, authority, and the new commercialism in Joseph Andrews, ELH, 54(2), 253–76.Google Scholar
Cruise, J. (1997). Precept, property, and ‘bourgeois’ practice in Joseph Andrews, Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, 37(3), 535–52.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J., O’Driscoll, J., & Hardaker, C. (2019). Notions of politeness in Britain and North America. In Ogiermann, E. and Blitvich, P., eds., From Speech Acts to Lay Understandings of Politeness: Multilingual and Multicultural Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 175–200. DOI: 10.1017/9781108182119.008Google Scholar
Darwall, S. (2006). The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, B. & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20, 143–63.Google Scholar
Dawson, P. (2012). Real authors and real readers: Omniscient narration and a discursive approach to the narrative communication model, Journal of Narrative Theory, 42(1), 91–116.Google Scholar
Dawson, P. (2009). The return of omniscience in contemporary fiction, Narrative, 17(2), 143–61.Google Scholar
De Cock, B. (2011). Why we can be you: The use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish, Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2762–75.Google Scholar
De Hoop, H. & Tarenskeen, S. (2015). It’s all about you in Dutch, Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 163–75.Google Scholar
DelConte, M. (2003). Why you can’t speak: Second-person narration, voice, and a new model for understanding narrative, Style, 37(2), 204–19.Google Scholar
De Mattia-Viviès, M. (2006). Le Discours indirect libre au risque de la grammaire. Le cas de l’anglais, Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l’Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Deringer, L., Gast, V., Haas, F., & Rudolf, O. (2015). Impersonal uses of the second person singular and generalized empathy: An exploratory corpus study of English, German and Russian. In Gardelle, L. and Sorlin, S., eds., The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 311–34.Google Scholar
Desurmont, C. (2006). Les figures de l’hypallage, Bulletin de la Société de Stylistique Anglaise, 27, 159–76.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. (2019). Understanding Jim Grimsley, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Ditman, T., Brunyé, T. T., Mahoney, C. R., & Taylor, H. A. (2010). Simulating an enactment effect: Pronouns guide action simulation during narrative comprehension, Cognition, 115, 172–8.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. Y. & Hagadon, A. (2001). The pleasures of immersion and interaction: Schemas, scripts, and the fifth business, Digital Creativity, 12(3), 153–66.Google Scholar
Duchan, J., Bruder, G. & Hewitt, L, eds. (1995). Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011a). ‘You talking to me?’ The viewer as a ratified listener to film discourse, Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1628–44.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. (2011b). Stranger than fiction? A few methodological notes on linguistic research in film discourse, Brno Studies in English, 37(1), 41–61.Google Scholar
Eilan, N., ed. (2017). The Second Person: Philosophical and Psychological Perspectives, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Emmott, C. (2004). Narrative Comprehension: A Discourse Perspective, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.Google Scholar
Ensslin, A. (2009). Respiratory narrative: Multimodality and cybernetic corporeality in ‘physio-cybertext’. In Page, R., ed., New Perspectives on Narrative and Multimodality. London: Routledge, pp. 155–65.Google Scholar
Ensslin, A. (2014). ‘Playing with rather than by the rules’: Metaludicity, allusive fallacy, and illusory agency in The Path. In Bell, A., Ensslin, A. & Rustad, H. K., eds., Analyzing Digital Fiction. London: Routledge, pp. 75–93.Google Scholar
Ensslin, A. & Bell, A. (2021). Digital Fiction and the Unnatural: Transmedial Narrative Theory, Method, and Analysis. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind's Hidden Complexities, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Felman, S. (1992). Education and crisis, or the vicissitudes of teaching. In Felman, S. & Laub, D., Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History. London, New York: Taylor & Frances/Routledge, pp. 1–56.Google Scholar
Felman, S. & Laub, D., eds. Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History. London, New York: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.Google Scholar
Fielding, Henry. (1967 [1742]). The History of the Adventures of Joseph Andrews and of his Friend Mr Abraham Adams and An Apology for the Life of Mrs Shamela Andrews, Brooks-Davies, D., ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, D. & McCleery, A. (2005). An Introduction to Book History, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. (1990). Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction, Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (1993). Second-person fiction: Narrative You as addressee and/or protagonist, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 18, 217–47.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (1994a). Introduction: Second-person narrative and related issues, Style, 28(3), 281–311.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (1994b). Second-person narrative as a test case for narratology: The limits of realism, Style, 28(3), 445–79.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M. (2011). The category of ‘person’ in fiction: You and We narrative-multiplicity and indeterminacy of reference. In Olson, G., ed., Current Trends in Narratology. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, pp. 101–41.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. (1984). Speech and silence in Jane Eyre, Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, 24(4), 683–700.Google Scholar
Freedman, J. L., & Fraser, S. C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique, JPSP, 4, 196–202.Google Scholar
Fresco, N. (1984). Remembering the Unknown, International Review of Psychoanalysis, 11, 417–27.Google Scholar
Fromonot, J. (2021). Figures de l’instabilité dans l’oeuvre de William Makepeace Thackeray (1811–1863). Etude stylistique, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Gallagher, S. (2012). Empathy, simulation, and narrative, Science in Context, 25(3), 355–81.Google Scholar
Gallese, V. (2001). The ‘shared manifold’ hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 33–50.Google Scholar
Gallese, V. (2009). Motor abstraction: A neuroscientific account of how action goals and intentions are mapped and understood, Psychological Research, 73(4), 486–98.Google Scholar
Gallese, V. (2014). Bodily selves in relation: Embodied simulation as second-person perspective on intersubjectivity, Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1644), 1–12.Google Scholar
Ganteau, J. M. (2015). The Ethics and Aesthetics of Vulnerability in Contemporary British Fiction, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ganteau, J. M. (2017). Performing the void: The violence of the unassimilated in some contemporary British narratives, Sillages critiques, 22, Ecriture de la violence, violence de l’écriture. http://journals.openedition.org/sillagescritiques/4917Google Scholar
Gardelle, L. & Sorlin, S. (2018). Anthropocentrism, egocentrism and the notion of Animacy Hierarchy. In Gardelle, L. and Sorlin, S., eds., From culture to language and back: The Animacy Hierarchy in language and discourse, International Journal of Language and Culture, 5(2), 133–61.Google Scholar
Gast, V., Deringer, L., Haas, F., & Rudolf, O. (2015). Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization and empathy effects, Journal of Pragmatics, 88, 148–62.Google Scholar
Gavins, J. (2007). Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Gavins, J. & Lahey, E., eds. (2016). World Building: Discourse in the Mind, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Gelabert-Desnoyer, J. J. (2008). Not so impersonal: Intentionality in the use of pronoun uno in contemporary Spanish political discourse, Pragmatics, 183, 407–24.Google Scholar
Genette, G. (1991). Introduction to the paratext, trans. Mackean, M., New Literary History, 22(2), 261–72.Google Scholar
Gensane, B. (1994). Corps social, corps politique dans Down and Out in Paris and London, Etudes britanniques contemporaines, 5, 73–87.Google Scholar
Gensane, B. (1997). Down and Out in Paris and London de George Orwell: Un sujet narrant-narré entre deux villes, Etudes britanniques contemporaines, 11, 95–111.Google Scholar
Gibbons, A. (2011). This is not for you. In Bray, J. and Gibbons, A., eds., Mark Z. Danielewski. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
Giora, R., Balaban, N., Fein, O. & Alkabets, I. (2004). Negation as positivity in disguise. In Colston, H. L. and Katz, A., eds., Figurative Language Comprehension: Social and Cultural Influences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 233–55.Google Scholar
Giovanelli, M. & Harrison, C. (2018). Cognitive Grammar in Stylistics: A Practical Guide, London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. (2006). Simulating Minds: The Philosophy, Psychology and Neuroscience of Mindreading, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gooderham, W. (2012). Paul Auster interview. The American writer speaks to Time Out about his new book ‘Winter Journal’, Time Out. Online. Last accessed 9 July 2020 (article no longer available online).Google Scholar
Gordon, R. M. (1996). ‘Radical’ simulationism. In Carruthers, P. & Smith, P. K., eds., Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 11–21.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1991). Study in the Way of Words, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grimsley, J. (1994 [1984]). Winter Birds, Chapel Hill: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
Guéguen, N. (2016). Quand Internet nous mène par le bout du clic, Sciences Humaines, 287, 34–35.Google Scholar
Guillaume, G. (1987[1947–48]). Leçons de linguistique 1947–48. Grammaire particulière du français et grammaire générale III In Valin, R., Hirtle, W. & Joly, A., eds. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval & Lille, Presses Universitaires de Lille, pp. 109–20.Google Scholar
Hantzis, D. M. (1988). ‘You are about to begin reading’: The nature and function of second person point of view. PhD diss., Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd ed., revised by C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Harrison, C. (2020). ‘The truth is we’re watching each other’: Voiceover narration as ‘split self’ presentation in The Handmaid’s Tale TV series, Language and Literature, 17(4), 309–34.Google Scholar
Hartmann, T. (2008). Parasocial interactions and paracommunication with new media characters. In Konijn, E. A., Utz, S., Tanis, M. & Barnes, S. B., eds., Mediated Interpersonal Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 177–99.Google Scholar
Hayles, N. K. (2008). Electronic Literature: New Horizons for the Literary, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Heal, J. (1996). Simulation, theory and content. In Carruthers, P. & Smith, P. K., eds., Theories of Theories of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–89.Google Scholar
Herman, D. (1994). Textual ‘you’ and double deixis in Edna O’Brien’s A Pagan Place, Style, 28(3), 378–411.Google Scholar
Herman, D. (2002). Story Logic: Problems and Possibilities of Narrative, Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, M. F. & Perkins, L. (1981). Second person point of view in narrative. In Magill, F. N., ed., Critical Survey of Short Fiction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Salem Press, pp. 119–32.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Metalinguistic negation and pragmatic ambiguity, Language, 61(1), 121–74.Google Scholar
Horton, D. & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a distance, Psychiatry, 19, 215–29.Google Scholar
Hrisonopulo, K. (2007). Who is to believe when you bet: On non-referential indexical functions of the pronoun you in English, Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación /Culture, language and representation, 5, 241–53.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. P. (1996). The novel and social/cultural history. In Richetti, J., ed., The Cambridge Companion to the Eighteenth-Century Novel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–40.Google Scholar
Hutto, D. D. (2011). Understanding fictional minds without theory of mind!, Style, 45(2), 276–82.Google Scholar
Iché, V. & Sorlin, S., eds. (In press). The Rhetoric of Literary Communication: From Classical English Novels to Contemporary Digital Fiction, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Iliopoulou, E. (2019). Because of You: Understanding Second-Person Storytelling, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
Iser, W. (1974). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan to Beckett, Baltimore, MD, London: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, E. (2013). Transcending the limitations of diaspora as a category of cultural identity in Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s The Thing Around Your Neck. In Seredyńska-Abou Eid, R., ed., Diasporic Choices. Oxford: Inter-Disciplinary Press, pp. 48–56.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and Poetics. In Seboek, T., ed., Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–77.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1984). Russian and Slavic Grammar. Studies 1931–1981, Berlin, New York, Amsterdam: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. & Klein, W. (1982). Speech, Place and Action. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1959 [1923]). Language: Its Nature, Development and Origin, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, Barbara. (2010 [2008]). Persons and Things, Cambridge, MA, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Juul, J. (2005). Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kacandes, I. (1993). Are you in the text?: The ‘literary performative’ in postmodernism fiction, Text and Performance Quaterly, 13, 139–53.Google Scholar
Kacandes, I. (2001). Talk Fiction: Literature and the Talk Explosion, Lincoln, London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In Almog, J., Perry, J. & Wettstern, H., eds., Themes for Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 481–583.Google Scholar
Kees, L. F. (2005). ‘Sympathy’ in Jane Eyre, Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900, 45(4), 873–97.Google Scholar
Kitawaga, C. & Lehrer, A. (1990). Impersonal uses of personal pronouns, Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 739–59.Google Scholar
Kluge, B. (2016). Generic uses of the second person singular: How speakers deal with referential ambiguity and misunderstandings, Pragmatics, 26(3), 501–22.Google Scholar
Kokkola, L. (2015). ‘Only connect!’: Creating connections when reading fiction and digital texts. Encuentro, 24, 59–72.Google Scholar
Kong, C. (2015). The space between second-personal respect and rational care in theory and mental health law, Law and Philosophy, 34(4), 433–67.Google Scholar
Kövesces, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kroeber, K. (1971). Style in Fictional Structure, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kukkonen, K. (2011). Metalepsis in popular culture: An introduction. In Kukkonen, K. and Klimek, S., eds., Metalepsis in Popular Culture. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Laberge, S. & Gillian, S. (1979). Anything you can do. In Givón, Talmy, ed., Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 419–40.Google Scholar
Lambrou, M. (2019). Disnarration and the Unmentioned in Fact and Fiction, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lance, M. and Kukla, R. (2012). Leave the gun: Take the cannoli! The pragmatic topography of second-person calls, Ethics, 123(3), 456–78.Google Scholar
Landow, G. P. (1992). Hypertext: The Convergence of Contemporary Critical Theory and Technology, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Landow, G. P. (2006). Hypertext 3.0: Critical Theory and New Media in an Era of Globalization, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 2, Descriptive Application, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lanser, S. S. (1992). Jane Eyre’s legacy: The powers and dangers of singularity. Fictions of Authority: Women Writers and Narrative Voice. Cornell: Cornell University Press. www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt207g6vm.13Google Scholar
Laub, D. M. D. (1992). Bearing witness, or the vicissitudes of listening. In Felman, S. & Laub, D., Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History. London, New York: Taylor & Frances/Routledge, pp. 57–76.Google Scholar
Laub, D. M. D. (1992). An event without a witness: Truth, testimony and survival. In Felman, S. & Laub, D., Testimony: Crises of Witnessing in Literature, Psychoanalysis, and History. London, New York: Taylor & Frances/Routledge, pp. 75–92.Google Scholar
Lecercle, J. J. (2019). De L’interpellation. Sujet, langue, idéologie, Amsterdam: Editions Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Leech, G. & Short, M. (2007 [1981]). Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose, Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Lokrantz, J. T. (1973). The Underside of the Weave: Some Stylistic Devices Used by Vladimir Nabokov, Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Macrae, A. (2012). Readerly deictic shifting to and through I and you: An updated hypothesis. In Kwaitkowska, A., ed., Texts and Minds: Papers in Cognitive Poetics and Rhetoric. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 41–56.Google Scholar
Macrae, A. (2015). ‘You’ and ‘I’ in charity fundraising appeals. In Gardelle, L. & Sorlin, S., eds., The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 105–24.Google Scholar
Macrae, A. (2016). You and I, past and present. Cognitive processing of perspective, DIEGESIS. Interdisciplinary E-Journal for Narrative Research/Interdisziplinäres E-Journal für Erzählforschung, 5(1), 64–80. www.diegesis.uni-uppertal.de/index.php/diegesis/article/download/214/305Google Scholar
Macrae, A. (2018). Positioning the reader in post-apartheid literature of Trauma: I and You in Zoë Wicomb’s David’s Story. In Gibbons, A. and Macrae, A., eds., Pronouns in Literature: Positions and Perspectives in Language. London: Macmillan, pp. 55–74.Google Scholar
Macrae, A. (2019). Discourse Deixis in Metafiction: The Language of Metanarration, Metalepsis and Disnarration, New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maitland, K. & Wilson, J. (1987). Pronominal selection and ideological conflict, Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 495–512.Google Scholar
Malamud, S. (2005). Arbitrary monsters: you and one. Paper presented at LSA Workshop ‘Context and Content – Topics in Formal Pragmatics.’ Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. http://people.brandeis.edu/~smalamud/malamud-handout-lsa2005.pdfGoogle Scholar
Malamud, S. (2006). Semantics and pragmatics of arbitrariness. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Malamud, S. (2012). Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man and du, Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 15(1), 1–48.Google Scholar
Mami, F. (2014). Circumventing cultural reification: A study of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s The Thing Around Your Neck, Romanian Journal of English Studies, 11(1), 215–25.Google Scholar
Monod, S. (1971). Charlotte Brontë and the thirty ‘readers’ of Jane Eyre. In Dunn, R. J., ed., Jane Eyre: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, Criticism. New York: Norton, pp. 496–507.Google Scholar
Marcellin, K. (2019). Materialising oblivion: The creative and poetic powers of metalepsis in Ali Smith’s Hotel World and The Accidental. In Cassigneul, A. and Maurel, S., eds., La vie de l’oubli dans la littérature britannique des XXe et XXIe siècles/ The Life of Forgetting. Oblivion’s Enduring Ghosts in British Literature, Caliban. French Journal of English Studies, 60, 102–113.Google Scholar
Margolin, U. (1986). Dispersing/avoiding the subject: A narratological perspective, Texte, 5(6), 181–210.Google Scholar
Martínez, M. A. (2015). Double deixis, inclusive reference, and narrative engagement: The case of YOU and ONE*, BABEL-AFIAL, 24, 145–63.Google Scholar
McCracken, E. (2013). Expanding Genette’s epitext/peritext model for transitional electronic literature: Centrifugal and centripetal vectors on Kindles and iPads, Narrative, 21(1), 105–24.Google Scholar
McKeon, M. (2017). The eighteenth-century challenge to narrative theory. In Steinby, L. and Mäkikalli, A., eds., Narrative Concepts in the Study of Eighteenth-Century Literature. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 39–77.Google Scholar
Mey, J. L. (1999). When Voices Clash: A Study in Literary Pragmatics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meyer, S. L. (1990). Colonialism and the figurative strategy of Jane Eyre, Victorian Studies, 33(2), 247–68.Google Scholar
Miall, D. S. (2000). On the necessity of empirical studies of literary reading, Frame. Utrecht Journal of Literary Theory, 14(2/3), 43–59.Google Scholar
Michlin, M. (2012). The haunted house in contemporary filmic and literary gothic narratives of trauma, Transatlantica. Revue d’études américaines. American Studies Journal, 1, Le roman policier, littérature transatlantique / Maisons Hantées. Online. https://journals.openedition.org/transatlantica/5933Google Scholar
Mignot, E. (2015). Pragmatic and stylistic uses of personal pronoun one. In Gardelle, L. & Sorlin, S., eds., The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 275–309.Google Scholar
Mildorf, J. (2016). Reconsidering second-person narration and involvement, Language and Literature, 25 (2), 145–58.Google Scholar
Mills, C. (2014). Manipulation as an aesthetic flaw. In Coons, C. and Weber, M., eds., Manipulation. Theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 135–50.Google Scholar
Moltmann, F. (2010). Generalizing detached self-reference and the semantics of generic one, Mind Language, 25(4), 440–73.Google Scholar
Moncomble, F. (2017). Beauty and the tweet: How traditional media seduce in the digital age. In Sorlin, S., ed., On Seductive Discourse / La Séduction du discours, E-rea, 15 (1). Online. https://journals.openedition.org/erea/5917Google Scholar
Montfort, N. (2003). Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Morrissette, B. (1965). Narrative ‘you’ in contemporary literature, Comparative Literature Studies, 2, 1–24.Google Scholar
Morrissette, B. (1985). Novel and Film: Essays in Two Genres, Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nahajec, L. (2009). Negation and the creation of implicit meaning in poetry, Language and Literature, 18(2), 109–27.Google Scholar
Nudelman, F. (1992). Harriet Jacobs and the sentimental politics of female suffering, ELH, 59(4), 939–64.Google Scholar
Nünning, A. (2005). Commentary. In Herman, D., Jahn, M., Ryan, M., eds., Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory. London: Routledge, p. 74.Google Scholar
Oatley, K. (1999). Meeting of minds: Dialogue, sympathy, and identification in reading fiction, Poetics, 26, 439–54.Google Scholar
O’Connor, P. E. (1994). ‘You could feel it through the skin’: Agency and positioning in prisoners’ stabbing stories, Text, 14(1), 45–75.Google Scholar
Onega, S. & Ganteau, J. M. (2018). Contemporary Trauma Narratives: Liminality and the Ethics of Form, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Orwell, G. (1961 [1933]). Down and Out in Paris and London, Orlando: A Harvest Book, Harcourt, Inc.Google Scholar
O’Regan, J. K., & Noë, A. (2001). A sensorimotor account of vision and visual consciousness, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 939–1031.Google Scholar
Oswald, S. (2016). Conspiracy and bias: Argumentative features and persuasiveness of conspiracy theories. OSSA Conference Archive, 168. Online. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/168Google Scholar
Pacherie, E. (2014). How does it feel to act together?, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Science, 13(1), 25–46.Google Scholar
Pauen, M. (2012). Second person perspective, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, 55(1). Online. www.researchgate.net/publication/263731471_The_Second-Person_PerspectiveGoogle Scholar
Payne, J. & Huddleston, R. (2002). Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–523.Google Scholar
Phelan, J. (2011). Rhetoric, ethics, and narrative communication: Or, from story and discourse to authors, resources, and audiences, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 94(1/2), 55–75.Google Scholar
Phelan, J. (2017). Somebody Telling Somebody Else. A Rhetorical Poetics of Narrative, Ohio: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Phelan, J. (2018). Fictionality, audiences, and character: A rhetorical alternative to Catherine Gallagher’s ‘Rise of Fictionality’, Poetics Today, 39(1), 113–29.Google Scholar
Pollock, L. (1996). (An)other politics of reading Jane Eyre, The Journal of Narrative Technique, 26(3), 249–73.Google Scholar
Popova, Y. (2015). Stories, Meaning, and Experience. Narrativity and Enaction, New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Power, H. (2010). Henry Fielding, Richard Bentley, and the ‘Sagacious Reader’ of Tom Jones, The Review of English Studies, 61(252): 749–72.Google Scholar
Prince, G. (1987). A Dictionary of Narratology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Rapp, D. N. & Gerrig, R. J. (2006). Predilections for narrative outcomes: The impact of story contexts and reader preference, Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 54–67.Google Scholar
Rawson, C. (2000). Fielding’s Richardson: Shamela, Joseph Andrews and parody revisited, XVII-XVIII, Bulletin de la société d’études anglo-américaines des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, 51, 77–94.Google Scholar
Rembowska-Płuciennik, M. (2018). Second-person narration as a joint action, Language and Literature, 27(3), 159–75.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (1991). The poetics and politics of second-person narrative, Genre, (24), 309–30.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. (2006). Unnatural Voices: Extreme Narration in Modern and Contemporary Fiction, Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. (1862 [1748]). Clarrisa or The History of a Young Lady, Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Rimmon-Kenan, S. (2007). Narration: levels and voices, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. London: Routledge, pp. 97–106.Google Scholar
Royle, N. (1991). Telepathy and Literature: Essays on the Reading Mind, Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Royle, N. (2011). Veering: A Theory of Literarure, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ruby, P. & Decety, J. (2001). Effect of subjective perspective taking during simulation of action: A PET investigation of agency, Nature Neuroscience, 4, 546–50.Google Scholar
Ruokkeinen, S. & Liira, A. (2017). Material approaches to exploring the borders of paratext, Textual Cultures, 11(1/2), 106–29.Google Scholar
Rustad, H. K. (2012). Digital Litteratur: En Innføring, Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. L. (1999). Introduction. In Ryan, M. L., ed., Cyberspace Textuality: Computer Technology and Literary Theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. L. (2001). Narrative as Virtual Reality, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, M. L. (2017). Le transmedia storytelling comme pratique narrative, Revue française des sciences de l’information et de la communication, 10, Le Design et Transmédia: le croisement des disciplines de SHS. Online. https://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.2548Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1967). The search for help: No one to turn to. In Schneidman, E., ed., Essays in Self-Destruction. New York: Science House.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Emmott, C. (2012). Mind, Brain and Narrative, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sato, M. & Bergen, K, B. (2013). The case of the missing pronouns: Does mentally simulated perspective play a functional role in the comprehension of person, Cognition, 127, 361–74.Google Scholar
Scheff, T. J. (1979). Catharsis in Healing, Ritual, and Drama, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in conversational openings. American Anthropologist, 70(6), 1075–95.Google Scholar
Schmitt, A. (2017). The Phenomenology of Autobiography: Making it Real, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schönberger, C. (2017). ‘You’ reconstructing the past: Paul Auster’s Winter Journal, Mnemosyne o la construzione del senso, 10, Louvain: Presses universitaires de Louvain, pp. 89–98.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P. (2020). The Art of Political Storytelling: Why Stories Win Votes in Post-Truth Politics, London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Sedikides, C. & Brewer, M., eds. (2001). Individual Self, Relational Self, Collective Self, London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E. & Short, M. (2004). Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shafer, D. M. & Raney, A. A. (2012). Exploring how we enjoy antihero narratives, Journal of Communication, 62, 1028–46.Google Scholar
Shannon, E. F. (1955). The present tense in Jane Eyre, Nineteenth-Century Fiction, 10(2), 141–45.Google Scholar
Sherwood, M. M. (1853 [1835]). Caroline Mordaunt; or, the Governess, London: William Darton and Son.Google Scholar
Siccardi, J. (2017). De la divergence culturelle à la confluence transculturelle: Rencontres de l’altérité dans The Thing Around Your Neck de Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Journal of the Short Story in English, 69, 181–94.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2004). Person, Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. (1993). Language, Ideology and Point of View, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. (2003). On the Discourse of Satire, Linguistic Approaches to Literature 2, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. (2011). ‘That’s not ironic, that’s just stupid.’ Towards an eclectic account of the discourse of irony. In Dynel, M., ed., The Pragmatics of Humour across Discourse Domains. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Sinha, I. J. & Foscht, T. (2007). Reverse Psychology Marketing: The Death of Traditional Marketing and the Rise of the New ‘Pull’ Game, Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Skains, R. L. (2010). The shifting author-reader dynamic: Online novel communities as a bridge from print to digital literature, Convergence, The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 16(1), 95–111. DOI: 10.1177/1354856509347713Google Scholar
Sklar, H. (2013). The Art of Sympathy in Fiction: Forms of Ethical and Emotional Persuasion, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2014a). The ‘indisciplinarity’ of stylistics, Topics in Linguistics, 14(1), 9–15.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2014b). Ideological crossings: ‘You’ and the pragmatics of negation in Jamaica Kincaid’s A Small Place, Etudes de Stylistique Anglaise, 7, 11–25.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2014c). La Stylistique anglaise. Théories et pratiques. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2016a). From a stylistic angle: Methodological issues and liminal creativity, Angles – French Perspectives on the Anglophone World, 3. Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/angles.1625Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2016b). Review article. Three major handbooks in three years: Stylistics as a mature discipline, Language and Literature, 25, 286–301.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2016c). Language and Manipulation in House of Cards: A Pragma-Stylistic Perspective, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2017). The pragmatics of manipulation: Exploiting im/politeness theories, Journal of Pragmatics, 121, 132–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.002Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2018a). Strategies of involvement and moral detachment in House of Cards, Journal of Literary Semantics, 47(1). Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2018-0002Google Scholar
Sorlin, S., ed. (2018b). La stylistique anglaise comme carrefour de l’anglistique. In Sorlin, S., ed., La Société de Stylistique Anglaise (1978–2018) : 40 ans de style / 40 years of style, Etudes de Stylistique Anglaise, 12, 7–35.Google Scholar
Sorlin, S., (2019). Auster’s autobiographical ‘you’ in Report from the Interior: Multi-faceted (inter)subjectivities, E-rea, 17(1), 15 December 2019. Online. http://journals.openedition.org/erea/8900,Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2020a). Readerly freedom from the nascent novel to digital fiction: Confronting Fielding’s Joseph Andrews and Burne’s ‘24 Hours with Someone You Know’, Narrative, 28(1), 62–82. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/745181Google Scholar
Sorlin, S. (2020b). Introduction: Manipulation in fiction. In Sorlin, S., ed., Stylistic Manipulation of the Reader in Contemporary Fiction. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
Soto-Crespo, R. E. (2002). Death and the diaspora writer: Hybridity and mourning in the work of Jamaica Kincaid, Contemporary Literature, 43(2), 342–76.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2014). La vigilance épistémique. In Herman, T. & Oswald, S. eds., Rhétorique et cognition / Rhetoric and cognition: Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives / Theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 21–67.Google Scholar
Spitzer, M. (2012). Digitale Demenz: Wie wir unsere Kinder um den Verstand bringen, Munich: Droemer.Google Scholar
Spivak, G., (1985). Three women’s texts and a critique of imperialism, Critical Inquiry, 12, 243–61.Google Scholar
Sterne, L. (1759). The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman, London: J. Dodsley.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. (1996). Dear Reader: The Conscripted Audience in Nineteenth-Century British Fiction, Baltimore, MD, London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Stirling, L., & Manderson, L. (2011). About you: empathy, objectivity and authority, Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 1581–601.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. (2009). Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Swasy, J. L. & Munch, J. M. (1985). Examining the target of receiver elaborations: Rhetorical question effects on source processing and persuasion, Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 877–86.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. E. & Fauconnier, G. (1996). Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In Fauconnier, G. and Sweetser, E., eds., Spaces, Worlds and Grammars. Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar
Szilas, N. (2014). Où va l’intrigue? Réflexions autour de quelques récits fortement interactifs, Cahiers de Narratologie. Analyse et théorie narratives, 27, Les bifurcations du récit interactif: Continuité ou rupture? Online. DOI: 10.4000/narratologie.7065Google Scholar
Tarenskeen, S. (2010). From you to me (and back): The flexible meaning of the second person pronoun in Dutch. Unpublished MA Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Thackeray, W. M. (1848). Vanity Fair: A Novel without a Hero, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thackeray, W. M. (1994 [1850]). The History of Pendennis, His Fortunes and Misfortunes, His Friends and His Greatest Enemy, edited and introduced by Sutherland, John, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, B. (2014). 140 Characters in Search of a Story: Twitterfiction as an Emerging Narrative Form. In A. Bell, A. Ensslin & H. Kristian, eds., Analyzing Digital Fiction. London: Routledge, 94–108.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2001). Empathy and consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 1–32.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (with Dweck, C., Silk, J., Skyrms, B. & Spelke, E.). (2009). Why We Cooperate, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2014). The Natural History of Human Thinking, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trush, T. (2012). The ‘You’ Effect: How to Transform Ego-Based Marketing into Captivating Messages That Create Customers. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.Google Scholar
Tungate, M. (2011). Branded Beauty: How Marketing Changed the Way We Look, London, Philadelphia, New Delhi: Kogan Page Limited.Google Scholar
Vallas, S. (2019). Report from the Interior in Paul Auster’s work: Self-writing or ‘the uninterrupted narrative that continues until the day we die’, E-rea, 17(1). Online. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/erea.9162Google Scholar
Van der Pligt, J. & Vliek, M. (2017). The Psychology of Influence: Theory, Research and Practice, London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Virtanen, T. (2018). *sings myself happy birthday*: Externalizing and reassuming self in virtual performatives, International Journal of Language and Culture. Special issue, Gardelle, L. & Sorlin, S., eds., From culture to language and back: The Animacy Hierarchy in language and discourse, 5(2), 247–69.Google Scholar
Wales, K. (1980). ‘Personal’ and ‘indefinite’ reference: The uses of the pronoun One in present-day English, Nottingham Linguistic Circular, 9, 93–117.Google Scholar
Wales, K. (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present-Day English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wales, K. (2015). ‘Loquor, Ergo Sum’; ‘I’ and Animateness Re-considered. In Gardelle, L. & Sorlin, S., eds., The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–114.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (2000). Do you think you’re part of this? Digital texts and the second person address. In Eskelinen, M. and Koskimaa, R., eds., Cybertext Yearbook 2000. Jyväskylä, Finland: Research Centre for Contemporary Culture, 2001, pp. 34–51. http://cybertext.hum.jyu.fi/articles/122.pdfGoogle Scholar
Walsh, R. (2007). The Rhetoric of Fictionality: Narrative Theory and the Idea of Fiction, Columbus: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Warde, A. (2011). ‘Whatever form you spoke of you were right’: Multivalence and ambiguous address in Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, Language and Literature, 20(4), 333–46.Google Scholar
Warhol, R. (1986). Toward a theory of the engaging narrator: Earnest interventions in Gaskell, Stowe, and Eliot, PMLA, 101(5), 811–18.Google Scholar
Warhol, R. (1989). Gendered Interventions: Narrative Discourse in the Victorian Novel, New Brunswick, London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Warhol, R. (1995). ‘Reader, can you imagine? No, you cannot’: The narratee as other in Harriet Jacobs’s text, Narrative, 3(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S. (2010). What ‘I’ and ‘You’ mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind, Language, 86(2), 332–65.Google Scholar
Werth, P. (1999). Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse, Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
White, K. (2016). Undoing ‘you’: Blindness and second sight in the second-person novel. PhD. diss., University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Whiteley, S. (2011). Text World Theory, real readers and emotional responses to The Remains of the Day, Language and Literature, 20(1), 23–42.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (2018). Relevance theory and literary interpretation. In Cave, T. & Wildon, D., eds., Reading beyond the Code: Literature and Relevance Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–205.Google Scholar
Wood, M. J. & Douglas, K. M. (2013). What about building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. Online. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409/fullGoogle Scholar
Zahavi, D. (1999). Self-Awareness and Alterity: A Phenomenological Investigation, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, E. (2004). Narrative, interactivity, play, and games: Four naughty concepts in need of discipline. In Wardrip-Fruin, N. and Harrigan, P., eds., First Person New Media as Story, Performance, and Game. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, pp. 154–64.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A. (1999). Situation models: The mental leap into imagined worlds, American Psychological Society, 8(1), 15–18.Google Scholar
Zunshine, L. (2011). Theory of mind, social hierarchy, and the emergence of narrative subjectivity. In Herman, D., ed., The Emergence of Mind: Representations of Consciousness in Narrative Discourse in English. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, pp. 161–86.Google Scholar