Transitivity, agency, mind style

What’s the lowest common denominator?

Louise Nuttall

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

Analyses of the worldviews presented by texts have identified grammatical patterns in terms of the transitivity system outlined in systemic-functional grammar (Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014). While contributing to different interpretations of mind style and ideology in different contexts, these patterns and interpretative effects often bear fundamental similarities. In this article, I investigate this underlying similarity in transitivity analyses, or ‘interpretative “lowest common denominator”’ (Simpson, 1993: 105), from a cognitive stylistic perspective. This article attempts to characterise this low-level effect and test it empirically. It takes as its starting point a body of analyses in stylistics and critical discourse analysis, which repeatedly link comparable sets of grammatical features (e.g. goal-less intransitive clauses and metonymic agency) to a diminished sense of intentionality, awareness and control in the human agent responsible (e.g. Halliday, 1971; Kennedy, 1991; Simpson and Canning, 2014; Trew, 1979). I argue that the shared interpretative effects of these stylistic choices can be understood in terms of Cognitive Grammar’s model of construal (Langacker, 2008). Specifically, I propose that the effects of transitivity choices are fundamentally effects for our attribution of mental states, or ‘mind-modelling’ (Stockwell, 2009) of participants, as part of a construal. Finally, I describe an online reader response experiment which tests this proposal among a wider sample of readers. Combining methods from experimental studies of mind attribution in psychology with a controlled alteration of texts by Conrad and Hemingway, this research reveals predictable cognitive effects of transitivity choices across contexts.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)159-179
Number of pages21
JournalLanguage and Literature
Volume28
Issue number2
Early online date19 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2019

Fingerprint

attribution
grammar
worldview
discourse analysis
Transitivity
ideology
psychology
interpretation
experiment
Construal
Attribution
Clause
Experiment
Ernest Hemingway
Critical Discourse Analysis
Reader
Systemic Functional Grammar
Alteration
Modeling
Experimental Study

Cite this

Nuttall, Louise. / Transitivity, agency, mind style : What’s the lowest common denominator?. In: Language and Literature. 2019 ; Vol. 28, No. 2. pp. 159-179.
@article{ddd1cb21b27d49cd8fc6b7b72dfe309d,
title = "Transitivity, agency, mind style: What’s the lowest common denominator?",
abstract = "Analyses of the worldviews presented by texts have identified grammatical patterns in terms of the transitivity system outlined in systemic-functional grammar (Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014). While contributing to different interpretations of mind style and ideology in different contexts, these patterns and interpretative effects often bear fundamental similarities. In this article, I investigate this underlying similarity in transitivity analyses, or ‘interpretative “lowest common denominator”’ (Simpson, 1993: 105), from a cognitive stylistic perspective. This article attempts to characterise this low-level effect and test it empirically. It takes as its starting point a body of analyses in stylistics and critical discourse analysis, which repeatedly link comparable sets of grammatical features (e.g. goal-less intransitive clauses and metonymic agency) to a diminished sense of intentionality, awareness and control in the human agent responsible (e.g. Halliday, 1971; Kennedy, 1991; Simpson and Canning, 2014; Trew, 1979). I argue that the shared interpretative effects of these stylistic choices can be understood in terms of Cognitive Grammar’s model of construal (Langacker, 2008). Specifically, I propose that the effects of transitivity choices are fundamentally effects for our attribution of mental states, or ‘mind-modelling’ (Stockwell, 2009) of participants, as part of a construal. Finally, I describe an online reader response experiment which tests this proposal among a wider sample of readers. Combining methods from experimental studies of mind attribution in psychology with a controlled alteration of texts by Conrad and Hemingway, this research reveals predictable cognitive effects of transitivity choices across contexts.",
keywords = "Transitivity, Mind style, Cognitive grammar, Reader response, Mind modelling, Conrad, Hemingway, cognitive grammar, transitivity, mind modelling, reader response, mind style",
author = "Louise Nuttall",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0963947019839851",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "159--179",
journal = "Language and Literature",
issn = "0963-9470",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "2",

}

Nuttall, L 2019, 'Transitivity, agency, mind style: What’s the lowest common denominator?', Language and Literature, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 159-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947019839851

Transitivity, agency, mind style : What’s the lowest common denominator? / Nuttall, Louise.

In: Language and Literature, Vol. 28, No. 2, 01.05.2019, p. 159-179.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transitivity, agency, mind style

T2 - What’s the lowest common denominator?

AU - Nuttall, Louise

PY - 2019/5/1

Y1 - 2019/5/1

N2 - Analyses of the worldviews presented by texts have identified grammatical patterns in terms of the transitivity system outlined in systemic-functional grammar (Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014). While contributing to different interpretations of mind style and ideology in different contexts, these patterns and interpretative effects often bear fundamental similarities. In this article, I investigate this underlying similarity in transitivity analyses, or ‘interpretative “lowest common denominator”’ (Simpson, 1993: 105), from a cognitive stylistic perspective. This article attempts to characterise this low-level effect and test it empirically. It takes as its starting point a body of analyses in stylistics and critical discourse analysis, which repeatedly link comparable sets of grammatical features (e.g. goal-less intransitive clauses and metonymic agency) to a diminished sense of intentionality, awareness and control in the human agent responsible (e.g. Halliday, 1971; Kennedy, 1991; Simpson and Canning, 2014; Trew, 1979). I argue that the shared interpretative effects of these stylistic choices can be understood in terms of Cognitive Grammar’s model of construal (Langacker, 2008). Specifically, I propose that the effects of transitivity choices are fundamentally effects for our attribution of mental states, or ‘mind-modelling’ (Stockwell, 2009) of participants, as part of a construal. Finally, I describe an online reader response experiment which tests this proposal among a wider sample of readers. Combining methods from experimental studies of mind attribution in psychology with a controlled alteration of texts by Conrad and Hemingway, this research reveals predictable cognitive effects of transitivity choices across contexts.

AB - Analyses of the worldviews presented by texts have identified grammatical patterns in terms of the transitivity system outlined in systemic-functional grammar (Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2014). While contributing to different interpretations of mind style and ideology in different contexts, these patterns and interpretative effects often bear fundamental similarities. In this article, I investigate this underlying similarity in transitivity analyses, or ‘interpretative “lowest common denominator”’ (Simpson, 1993: 105), from a cognitive stylistic perspective. This article attempts to characterise this low-level effect and test it empirically. It takes as its starting point a body of analyses in stylistics and critical discourse analysis, which repeatedly link comparable sets of grammatical features (e.g. goal-less intransitive clauses and metonymic agency) to a diminished sense of intentionality, awareness and control in the human agent responsible (e.g. Halliday, 1971; Kennedy, 1991; Simpson and Canning, 2014; Trew, 1979). I argue that the shared interpretative effects of these stylistic choices can be understood in terms of Cognitive Grammar’s model of construal (Langacker, 2008). Specifically, I propose that the effects of transitivity choices are fundamentally effects for our attribution of mental states, or ‘mind-modelling’ (Stockwell, 2009) of participants, as part of a construal. Finally, I describe an online reader response experiment which tests this proposal among a wider sample of readers. Combining methods from experimental studies of mind attribution in psychology with a controlled alteration of texts by Conrad and Hemingway, this research reveals predictable cognitive effects of transitivity choices across contexts.

KW - Transitivity

KW - Mind style

KW - Cognitive grammar

KW - Reader response

KW - Mind modelling

KW - Conrad

KW - Hemingway

KW - cognitive grammar

KW - transitivity

KW - mind modelling

KW - reader response

KW - mind style

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064680341&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0963947019839851

DO - 10.1177/0963947019839851

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 159

EP - 179

JO - Language and Literature

JF - Language and Literature

SN - 0963-9470

IS - 2

ER -

Nuttall L. Transitivity, agency, mind style: What’s the lowest common denominator? Language and Literature. 2019 May 1;28(2):159-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947019839851

Access to Document