Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-8spss Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T21:59:29.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Person Shift at Narrative Peak

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Anna Margetts
Anna Margetts*
Affiliation:
Monash University
*
[anna.margetts@monash.edu]
Get access

Abstract

Narrators like to highlight important events in their stories. In some languages, they may shift to first- or second-person pronouns to refer to third-person referents in order to do so. Such pronoun shifts show functional parallels with tense shifts like the historical present, as both highlight events through shifts in deictic categories. Longacre (1983:138-39) discusses the parallels between person and tense shifts in his account of narrative peak, that is, the formal marking of important narrative events. Labov (1972) analyzes similar strategies as internal evaluations. Person shifts constitute a phenomenon of the discourse-syntax interface and present a clear case of discourse structure influencing grammar. Both person shifts themselves and their motivation in narrative structure have been little investigated. The article reviews person shifts in a number of languages reported in the literature and analyzes in detail the characteristics of this discourse strategy in Saliba-Logea, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. The study contributes to the growing body of research on pronouns and person markers, and on referring expressions more generally, by adding a new angle of investigation. Previous studies have tended to focus on the morphosyntactic choices of referring expressions and their motivations, that is, on the choices between lexical nouns, free vs. bound pronouns, and so forth. The present study focuses on the paradigmatic choices between different person forms within one and the same morphosyntactic expression type. In doing so it offers a new perspective on pronoun choice and the factors influencing it crosslinguistically. While some types of person shift appear to be rare, overall, the strategy of person shift at narrative peak seems to constitute a solid crosslinguistic phenomenon.

Keywords

person shiftpronounsnarrative peaknarrativesevaluationimperativestense shifthistorical presentdiscourse structureSilverstein hierarchy

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 755 - 805
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allan, Keith. 2007. The Western classical tradition in linguistics. Oakville, CT: Equinox.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Audring, Jenny. 2006. Pronominal gender in spoken Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18. 85–116. DOI: 10.1017/S1470542706000043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, Michael, and Damrad-Frye, Robin. 1991. On the ability to provide evaluative comments: Further explorations of children's narrative competencies. Journal of Child Language 18. 689–710. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000900011314.10.1017/S0305000900011314CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, Michael. 1992. A situated theory of agreement. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. 1997. Narrative theory and narrative development: The Labovian impact. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7. 235–44. DOI: 10.1075/jnlh.7.29nar.10.1075/jnlh.7.29narCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth Aronson, and Slobin, Dan Isaac. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Birjulin, L. A., and Xrakovskij, V. S.. 1992. Povelitelnye predloženija: Problemy teorii. Tipologija imperativnyx konstrukcij, ed. by Xrakovskij, V. S., 5–50. St. Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
Boerger, Brenda H. 2010. Narrator perspective in Natügu. Paper presented at the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics’ Academic Forum.Google Scholar
Braun, Friederike, and Haig, Geoffrey. 2010. When are German ‘girls’ feminine? How the semantics of age influences the grammar of gender agreement. Language in its socio-cultural context: New explorations in gendered, global and media uses, ed. by Bieswanger, Markus, Motschenbacher, Heiko, and Mühleisen, Susanne, 69–84. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bravmann, Meir M. 1953. Studies in Arabic and general syntax. Le Caire: Institut français d'archéologie orientale.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Levinson, Stephen P.. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, Mike. 1995. Peaking at zero: Null subjects and other indicators of peak in Konni texts. Theoretical approaches to African linguistics, ed. by Akinlabi, Akinbiyi, 345–57. Trenton: Africa World Press.Google Scholar
Cech, Petra, and Heinschink, Mozes F.. 1999. Sepečides-Romani: Grammatik, Texte und Glossar eines türksichen Romani-Dialekts. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Cleary-Kemp, Jessica. 2006. Givenness, definiteness, and specificity in a language without articles: The use of NP markers in Saliba, an Oceanic language of Papua New Guinea. Melbourne: Monash University honors thesis.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15. 203–4. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700016352.10.1017/S0022226700016352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139166119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1986. Anaphoric relations in English and French: A discourse perspective. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1987. Anaphoric pronouns: Under linguistic control or signalling particular discourse representations? Journal of Semantics 5. 233–60. DOI: 10.1093/jos/5.3.233.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1999. Anaphora, discourse and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198236481.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curzan, Anne. 2003. Gender shifts in the history of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1989. Searching for Aboriginal languages: Memoirs of a field worker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1980. Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (Advances in discourse processes 3), ed. by Chafe, Wallace L., 203–74. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1982. Towards a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics, ed. by Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang, 31–59. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1986. Evaluation in narrative: The present tense in medieval ‘performed stories’. Yale French Studies 70. 199–251. DOI: 10.2307/2929856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 1984. Participant tracking in Toba Batak. Studies in the structure of Toba Batak, ed. by Schachter, Paul, 59–79. Los Angeles: University of California, LosAngeles.Google Scholar
Frank, Francine Wattman, and Treichler, Paula A.. 1989. Language, gender, and professional writing: Theoretical approaches and guidelines for nonsexist usage. New York: Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Frey, John R. 1946. The historical present in narrative language. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 45. 43–67. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27712752.Google Scholar
Friedman, Victor A. 2012. Language contact. The Oxford handbook of tense and aspect, ed. by Binnick, Robert I., 398–427. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Glovinskaja, M. Ja. 1989. Semantika, pragmatika i stilistika vido-vremennyx form. Grammatičeskie issledovanija: Funkcional'no-stilističeskij aspekt: Supersegmentnaja fonetika. Morfologičeskaja semantika, ed. by Šmelev, D. N., 74–143. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Graur, Alexandru, et al. 1966. Grammatica limbii române. Bucharest: Academia Repub- licii Socialiste România.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307. DOI: 10.2307/416535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Jane F. 1997. Reconciling the exhortative and non-exhortative uses of the Macedonian imperative. Balkanistica 10. 212–20.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntax of bound person forms. Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. by Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin, 197–226. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1942. Tense-usage in the Roland. Studies in Philology 39. 597–624. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4172589.Google Scholar
Head, Brian F. 1978. Respect degrees in pronominal reference. Universals of human language, vol. 3: Word structure, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A., and Moravcsik, Edith A., 151–211. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2011. A grammar of Goemai. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2004. Personal pronouns—Form, function, and grammaticaliza- tion. Erfurt: Universitāt Erfurt Habilitation thesis.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Breakthrough into performance. Folklore: Performance and communication, ed. by Ben-Amos, Dan and Goldstein, Kenneth S., 11–74. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1977. Discovering oral performance and measured verse in American Indian narrative. New Literary History 8. 431–57. DOI: 10.2307/468294.10.2307/468294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Bruce. 1993. The salfah as a narrative genre. Asian Folklore Studies 52. 5–32. DOI: 10.2307/1178449.10.2307/1178449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israeli, Alina. 2002. An imperative form in non-imperative constructions in Russian. Glossos 1. Online: http://slaviccenters.duke.edu/uploads/media_items/israeli.original.pdf.Google Scholar
Jones, Larry B. 1992. A note on the text structure of the Odyssey. Language in context: Essays for Robert E. Longacre, ed. by Hwang, Shin Ja J. and Merrifield, William R., 263–73. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, and Arlington: University of Texas.Google Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004167650.i-2198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 2009. The syntax and discourse structure of Neo-Aramaic narrative texts. ARAM Periodical 21. 163–78. DOI: 10.2143/ARAM.21.0.2047091.10.2143/ARAM.21.0.2047091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Pronominalization, reflexivization, and direct discourse. Linguistic Inquiry 3. 161–95. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177700.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu, and Kaburaki, Etsuko. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 627–72. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4178011.Google Scholar
Küntay, Aylin C., and Nakamura, Keiko. 2004. Linguistic strategies serving evaluative functions. Relating events in narrative, vol. 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, ed. by Strömqvist, Sven and Verhoven, Ludo, 329–58. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William, and Waletzky, Joshua. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Essays on the verbal and visual arts, ed. by Helm, June, 14–22. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1974. Remarks on ‘this’ and ‘that’. Chicago Linguistic Society 10. 345–56.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. 1976. An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.10.1515/9783112329924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. 1983. The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E. 1990. Storyline concerns and word order typology in East and West Africa. Los Angeles: The James S. Coleman African Studies Center and the Department of Linguistics, University of California.10.32473/sal.v21iSupp.107602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna. 2004. From implicature to construction: Emergence of a benefactive construction in Oceanic. Oceanic Linguistics 43. 445–68. DOI: 10.1353/o1.2005.0009.10.1353/ol.2005.0009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margetts, Anna. 2015. Person-based deictics as discourse markers. Melbourne: Monash University, ms.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 1999. A grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld.Google Scholar
Mayer, Mercer. 1974. Frog, where are you. London: Collins.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1979. Prototypes, pronouns and persons. Ethnolinguistics: Boas, Sapir and Whorf revisited, ed. by Mathiot, Madeleine, 63–83. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110804157-004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhāusler, Peter, and Harré, Rom. 1990. Pronouns and people: The linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Newman, Michael. 1992. Pronominal disagreement: The stubborn problem of singular epicene antecedents. Language in Society 21. 447–75. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500015529.10.1017/S0047404500015529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Michael. 1997. Epicene pronouns: The linguistics of a prescriptive problem. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Obeng, Samuel Gyasi. 1997. Indirectness in pronominal usage in Akan discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16. 201–21. DOI: 10.1177/0261927X970162005.10.1177/0261927X970162005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oshima, David Y. 2007. Syntactic direction and obviation as empathy-based phenomena: A typological approach. Linguistics 45. 727–63. DOI: 10.1515/lING.2007.022.10.1515/LING.2007.022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palva, Heikki. 1977. The descriptive imperative of narrative style in spoken Arabic. Folia Orientalia 18. 5–26.Google Scholar
Palva, Heikki. 1984. Further notes on the descriptive imperative of narrative style in spoken Arabic. Studia Orientalia 55. 379–91. Online: http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/StOrE/article/view/49784.Google Scholar
Peterson, Carole, and McCabe, Allyssa. 1983. Developmental psycholinguistics: Three ways of looking at a child s narrative. New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4757-0608-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 2000. Das grammatische Raritātenkabinett: A leisurely collection to entertain and instruct. Konstanz: Universitāt Konstanz. Online: http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/rara/intro/index.php.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Livia. 1989. Telling the American story: A structural and cultural analysis of conversational storytelling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Prokopovič, E. N. 1982. Glagol vpredloženii: Semantika i stilistika vido-vremennyx form. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Reich, Keith. 2010. Figuring Jesus: The power of rhetorical figures of speech in the gospel of Luke. Waco, TX: Baylor University.Google Scholar
Saxon, Leslie. 1993. Apersonal use for Athabaskan ‘impersonal’ ts'e-. International Journal of American Linguistics 59. 342–54. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1265528.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1981. Tense variation in narrative. Language 57. 45–62. DOI: 10.2307/414286.10.1353/lan.1981.0011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511611841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semplicini, Chiara. 2012. Dutch double gender nouns: Arbitrary or motivated agreement? Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24. 133–86. DOI: 10.1017/S1470542712000025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serzisko, Fritz. 1992. Sprechhandlungen und Pausen: Diskursorientierte Sprachbe-schreibung am Beispiel des Ik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111353920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiro, Martha. 2003. Genre and evaluation in narrative development. Journal of Child Language 30. 165–95. DOI: 10.1017/S0305000902005500.10.1017/S0305000902005500CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, Carmen. 1983. Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narrative: Context and meaning. Language 59. 760–80. DOI: 10.2307/413372.10.2307/413372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. Grammatical categories in Australian languages, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W., 112–71. New York: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1982. Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language 58. 1–21. DOI: 10.2307/413530.10.2307/413530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2012. On the sociolinguistic typology of linguistic complexity loss. Potentials of language documentation: Methods, analyses, and utilization, ed. by Seifart, Frank, Haig, Geoffrey, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Jung, Dagmar, Margetts, Anna, and Trilsbeek, Paul, 90–95. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Weidmann, Urs. 1984. Anaphoric they for singular expresssions. Modes of interpretation: Essays presented to Ernst Leisi on the occasion of his 65th birthday, ed. by Watts, Richard J. and Weidemann, Urs, 59–68. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1986. Does language reflect culture? Evidence from Australian English. Language in Society 15. 349–74. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500011805.10.1017/S0047404500011805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Bernd. 1983. Anaphora by pronouns. Linguistics 21. 373–74. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1983.21.2.373.10.1515/ling.1983.21.2.373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan, and Cysouw, Michael (eds.) 2010a. Rara & rarissima: Documenting the fringes of linguistic diversity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110228557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan, and Cysouw, Michael (eds.) 2010b. Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theory. Berlin: Mouton de Guyter.10.1515/9783110220933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1978. A feature of performed narrative: The conversational historical present. Language in Society 7. 215–37. DOI: 10.1017/S0047404500005534.10.1017/S0047404500005534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1979. The conversational historical present alternation. Language 55.16882. DOI: 10.2307/412521.10.2307/412521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa. 1982. CHP: The conversational historical present in American English narrative. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110851694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xrakovskij, V. S., and Volodin, A. P.. 1986. Semantika i tipologija imperativa: Russkij imperativ. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar