Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:06:55.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From text-linguistics to literary actants—The force dynamics of (emotional) vampirism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Michael Kimmel
Michael Kimmel*
Affiliation:
University of Vienna
*
Correspondence addresses: Michael Kimmel, Schallergasse 39/30, A-1120 Vienna, Austria. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article provides some groundwork for applying the cognitive linguistic theory of force dynamics (Talmy 1988, 2000) to narrative discourse. It proposes that Talmy's analytic apparatus is suitable for revealing character-related dynamics in literature, especially by exploiting the previously unnoticed convergence with the notion of actancy proposed by the narratologist Greimas (1966). Force imagery both in ordinary action descriptions and in metaphor opens a vista on how readers infer, stabilize, and elaborate narrative macro-representations of “who wants what” and “who does what to whom?” Hence, texts subtly encode aspects of higher-level story logic through forces, enabling readers (and scholars) to detect and scale up coherence patterns that shed light on character motives, protagonist interaction, and plot dynamics. A full-scale text linguistic analysis is proposed. My case study of about 500 text units found in Joseph Sheridan LeFanu's novella Carmilla (1872) reveals a dynamic web of driving, penetrating, manipulating, attracting, and erupting forces between the two main protagonists, a beautiful girl vampire and her 19 year-old victim.

Keywords

force dynamicsnarratologycognitive stylisticsevent structureinteractionactant rolesliterary characterization
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 235 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brandt, P.-A. 2002. Causation and narration. A dynamic approach. Almen Semiotik 16. 36–53.Google Scholar
Bremond, C. 1973. Logique du récit. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Brône, G. & Vandaele, J. (eds.). 2009. Cognitive poetics. Goals, gains and gaps. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Budniakiewicz, T. 1992. Fundamentals of story logic. Introduction to Greimassian semiotics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Budniakiewicz, T. 1998a. Actantial model. In Bouissac, P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of semiotics, 5–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Budniakiewicz, T. 1998b. Actants. In Bouissac, P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of semiotics, 8–11. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, M. 2004. Gothic's enigmatic signifier: The case of J. Sheridan Le Fanu's ‘Carmilla’. Gothic Studies 6 (2). 223–235.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Grosset/Putnam.Google Scholar
Dishong, G. 2004. Force dynamic aspects of the genetically modified food debate. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University MA Thesis.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. 2007. Cognitive linguistic approaches to literary studies: State of the art in cognitive poetics. In Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics, 1175–1202. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. 2005. Embodiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. & Robertson, D.. 2000. Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high-dimensional and embodied theories of meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43. 379–401.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. 1966. Sémantique structurale. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. 1989a. On meaning. [Special issue Greimassian Semiotics]. New Literary History 20(3). 539–550.Google Scholar
Greimas, A. J. 1989b [1973]. Description and narrativity: “The Piece of String”. [Special issue on Greimassian Semiotics]. translated by Perron, P. & Collins, F., New Literary History 20(3). 615–626.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C.. 1999. Construing experience through meaning. A language-based approach to cognition. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Herman, D. 2002. Story logic: Problems and possibilities of narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Herman, D. 2005. Actant. In Herman, D., Jahn, M. & Ryan, M.-L. (eds.), Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory, 1–2. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Herman, D. 2009. Cognitive approaches to narrative structure. In Vandaele, J. & Brône, G. (eds.), Cognitive poetics. Goals, gains, and gaps, 79–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1993. Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. 2005. From metaphor to the “Mental Sketchpad”: Literary macrostructure and compound image schemas in Heart of Darkness. Metaphor and Symbol 20(3). 199–238.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. 2008. Image schemas in narrative macrostructure: Combining cognitive linguistic with psycholinguistic approaches. In Peer, W. van & Auracher, J. (eds.), New beginnings in literary studies, 158–184. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. 2009. Analyzing image schemas in literature. Cognitive Semiotics 5. 159–188.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. 2011. Metaphor sets in “The Turn of the Screw”: What conceptual metaphors reveal about narrative functions. In Fludernik, M. (ed.), Beyond cognitive metaphor theory: Perspectives on literary metaphor, 196–223. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M. Under review. The conceptual metaphors of narrative structure: Gestural evidence for spatialized form in storytelling.Google Scholar
Kimmel, M.Under review. Eine psycholinguistische Studie zur Verarbeitung von Plotstrukturen [A psycholinguistic study on the comprehension of plot structures]. Cognitive Linguistics. Vienna: Report to the Vienna City Council MA 7.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuzmicova, A. Under review. Presence in the reading of literary narrative: A case for motor enactment. Semiotica.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1996. Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don't. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Kövecses, Z.. 1987. The cognitive model of anger inherent in American English. In Quinn, N. & Holland, D. (eds.), Cultural models in language and thought, 195–221. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
LeFanu, S. 1993 [1872]. Carmilla. In LeFanu, S., In a Glass Darkly, 243–319. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [also accessed from http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10007]Google Scholar
Oakley, T. 2005. Force dynamic dimensions of rhetorical effect. In Hampe, B. (ed.), From perception to meaning. Image schemas in cognitive linguistics, 443–473. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Propp, V. 1968. Morphology of the folktale. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, M.-L. 1991. Possible worlds, artificial intelligence, and narrative theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Signorotti, E. 1996. Repossessing the body: Transgressive desire in “Carmilla” and “Dracula”. Criticism 38. 607–632.Google Scholar
Smith, G. M. 1999. Local emotions, global moods, and film structure. In Smith, G. M. & Plantinga, C. R. (eds.), Passionate views, 103–126. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
Souriau, E. 1950. Les deux cent mille situations dramatiques. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Speer, N. K., Reynolds, J. R., Swallow, K. M. & Zacks, J. M.. 2009. Reading stories activates neural representations of visual and motor experiences. Psychological Science 20. 989–999.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, D. 2010. Forms of vitality. Exploring dynamic experience in psychology, the arts, psychotherapy, and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a cognitive semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Todorov, T. 1968. La grammaire du récit. Langages 12. 94–102.Google Scholar
Trabasso, T. & van den Broek, P.. 1985. Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language 24. 612–630.Google Scholar
Turner, M. 1991. Reading minds: the study of English in the age of cognitive science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. 1996. The literary mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Peer, W. van & Louwerse, M. (eds.). 2002. Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. & Tversky, B.. 2001. Event structure in perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin 127(1). 3–21.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. 1999. Five dimensions of narrative comprehension: The event-indexing model. In Goldman, S., Graesser, A. & van den Broek, P. (eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence, 93–109. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R., Radvansky, G. & Whitten, S.. 2002. Situation models and themes. In Louwerse, M. & Peer, W. van (eds.), Thematics: Interdisciplinary studies, 35–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar