Recent investigations into ethical experiences of fictional narratives have discussed the ‘positions’ that readers adopt in relation to the author, narrator and characters . This article applies Text World Theory as a means of accounting for the ethical experience of Lionel Shriver’s We Need to Talk About Kevin. Qualitative analysis of a sample of 150 online reader responses on the reading-based social network Goodreads reveals a range of ethical responses to the novel positioned between two interpretative ‘camps’ and the nature/nurture debate they reflect with regards to the character, Kevin. Drawing from this dataset, I explore how stylistic features of Shriver’s epistolary novel could be seen to influence readers’ ethical positioning in relation to the multiple perspectives presented at different levels of its narrative structure. As a result of the analysis, I propose that an account of ethical experience using Text World Theory may benefit from the concept of ‘construal’ in Langacker’s Cognitive Grammar. By modeling readers’ variable attention to multiple minds, including their own, a cognitive grammatical model of construal may support an understanding of ethical interpretation as an interpersonal experience within particular reading contexts.
Aristotle (1995) The Complete Works of Aristotle (ed. BarnesJ). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2.
BakhtinMM (1981) The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays (ed. HolquistM, trans. EmersonCHolquistM). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
3.
Baron-CohenSLeslieAMFrithUTA (1985) Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”?Cognition21(1): 37–46.
4.
BoothWC (1988) The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
5.
BrayJ (2003) The Epistolary Novel: Representations of Consciousness. London, UK: Routledge.
6.
CullenD (2009) Columbine. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group.
7.
CulpeperJ (2001) Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and Other Texts. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
8.
DuchanJFBruderGAHewittLE (eds) (1995) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
FauconnierGTurnerM (1996) Blending as a central process of grammar. In:GoldbergA (ed.) Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.113–130.
10.
GavinsJ (2007) Text World Theory: An Introduction. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
11.
GavinsJ (2013) Reading the Absurd. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
12.
GeeraertsD (2006) Methodology in cognitive linguistics. In: KristiansenGAchardMDirvenR (eds) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.3–31.
13.
GoffmanE (1997) The Goffman Reader (eds LemertCBranamanA). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
GregoriouC (2012) ‘Times like these, I wish there was a real Dexter’: Unpacking serial murder ideologies and metaphors from TV’s Dexter internet forum. Language and Literature21(3): 274–285.
16.
HallidayMAK (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edition.London, UK: Arnold.
17.
HarrisonC (2013) Cognitive Discourse Grammar in contemporary literature. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.
18.
HermanD (2013) Storytelling and the Sciences of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19.
HermanV (1999) Deictic projection and conceptual blending in epistolarity. Poetics Today20(3): 523–541.
20.
HollmannWB (2013) Nouns and verbs in Cognitive Grammar: where is the “sound” evidence?Cognitive Linguistics24(2): 275–308.
21.
KeenS (2007) Empathy and the Novel. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22.
LangackerRW (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites (Volume I). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
LangackerRW (1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application (Volume II). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
LangackerRW (2008) Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
25.
MalleBFHodgesSD (2005) Other Minds: How Humans Bridge the Divide Between Self and Others. London, UK: Guilford Press.
26.
MiallDS (2006) Literary Reading: Empirical and Theoretical Studies. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Nvivo qualitative data analysis Software (2012) QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 10.
29.
NuttallL (2014) Constructing a text world forThe Handmaid’s Tale. In: HarrisonCNuttallLStockwellP. (eds) Cognitive Grammar in Literature. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
30.
NuttallL (2015a) Attributing minds to vampires in Richard Matheson’sI Am Legend. Language and Literature24(1): 23–39.
31.
NuttallL (2015b) A Cognitive Grammar of mind style in speculative fiction. PhD Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.
32.
PalmerA (2004) Fictional Minds. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
33.
PeplowD (2011) ‘Oh, I’ve known a lot of Irish people’: Reading groups and the negotiation of literary interpretation. Language and Literature20(4): 295–215.
34.
PeplowDCarterR (2014) Stylistics and real readers. In: BurkeM (ed.) The Routledge Handbook of Stylistics. London, UK: Routledge, pp.37–41.
35.
PeplowDSwannJTrimarcoP. (2016) The Discourse of Reading Groups: Integrating Cognitive and Sociocultural Approaches. London, UK: Routledge.
36.
PhelanJ (1996) Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology. Columbus, OH: Ohio University Press.
37.
PhelanJ (2005) Living to Tell About it: A Rhetoric and Ethics of Character Narration. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
38.
PhelanJ (2007) Experiencing Fiction: Judgements, Progression, and the Rhetorical Theory of Narrative. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
39.
PolvinenM (2013) Affect and artifice in cognitive literary theory. Journal of Literary Semantics42(2): 165–180.
40.
RabinowitzP (1977) Truth in fiction: a re-examination of audiences. Critical Enquiry4(1): 121–141.
41.
RombergB (1962) Studies in the Narrative Technique of the First-Person Novel. Stockholm, Sweden: Almqvist and Wiksell.
42.
SanfordAEmmottC (2012) Mind, Brain and Narrative. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
SegalE (1995) Narrative comprehension and the role of deictic shift theory. In: DuchanJFBruderGAHewittLE (eds) Deixis in Narrative: A Cognitive Science Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.3–17.
44.
ShortMvan PeerW (1989) Accident! Stylisticians evaluate: aims and methods of stylistics. In: ShortM (ed.) Reading, Analysing and Teaching Literature. London, UK: Longman, pp. 22–71.
45.
ShriverL (2010 [2003]) We Need to Talk About Kevin. London, UK: Serpent’s Tail.
46.
StanzelFK (1984) A Theory of Narrative (trans. GoedscheC). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
StockwellP (2005) Texture and Identification. European Journal of English Studies9(2): 143–153.
48.
StockwellP (2009) Texture: A Cognitive Aesthetics of Reading. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
49.
StockwellP (2011) Ethics and imagination in literary reading. In: JonesR (ed.) Discourse and Creativity. London, UK: Pearson, pp.35–50.
50.
StockwellP (2013) The positioned reader. Language and Literature22(3): 263–277.
51.
SwannJAllingtonD (2009) Reading groups and the language of literary texts: a case study in social reading. Language and Literature18(3): 247–264.
52.
VandaeleJBrôneG (2009) Cognitive poetics: a critical introduction. In: BrôneGVandaeleJ (eds) Cognitive Poetics: Goals, Gains and Gaps. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.1–29.
53.
VerhagenA (2007a) Construal and perspectivization. In: GeeraertsDCuyckensH (eds) Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp.48–81.
54.
VerhagenA (2007b) Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
55.
WerthP (1999) Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Harlow, UK: Longman.
56.
WhiteleyS (2010) Text World Theory and the emotional experience of literary discourse. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.
57.
WhiteleyS (2011) Text World Theory, real readers and emotional responses toThe Remains of the Day. Language and Literature20(1): 23–42.
58.
WhiteleyS (2014) Ethics. In: StockwellPWhiteleyS (eds) Cambridge Handbook of Stylistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.395–409.
