Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The choice of the perspectival center of a stretch of discourse is crucial for the interpretation of certain phenomena such as free indirect discourse. It has been argued that the protagonist that is most prominent compared to competing protagonists gets to be the perspectival center. In this paper we discuss grammatical function and referential expression as prominence-lending cues and their impact on perspective-taking. We take the anchoring of free indirect discourse as the indicator for a shift in perspective as free indirect discourse can only be processed correctly if the reader is able to ascribe the utterance or thought to a protagonist. Identifying the perspectival center is particularly crucial for the interpretation of a thought or utterance in free indirect discourse mode that can potentially be ascribed to different protagonists, since in contrast to direct or indirect discourse the respective speaker or thinker is not explicitly marked as such in free indirect discourse. In a series of acceptability rating studies, we tested if anchoring of free indirect discourse to the less prominent of two competing referents is perceived to be unnatural. Further, we take a closer look at the role of subject and object as well as the choice of referential expression (proper name compared to indefinite noun phrase). We find that a protagonist referred to with a proper name in subject position is highly preferred as the anchor for free indirect discourse compared to a protagonist referred to with an indefinite noun phrase in object position. Building on these findings, we present evidence that the prominence of the referent that is established in the sentence preceding a sentence in free indirect discourse mode can be overridden by discourse prominence. That is, a referent that is repeatedly mentioned in a short discourse is preferred as the perspectival center regardless of the prominence of a competing referent in the sentence preceding a sentence in free indirect discourse mode.
Meuser et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: