Abstract
The aim of this paper is to take a close look at John McGahern’s mind style through the language of the heroine Elizabeth Reegan and other characters, in his 1963 novel The Barracks. Specifically, attention will be drawn to how the linguistic choices shape the figurative language to cast the author’s controversial views on the religion-pervaded puritan Irish society that he knew so well. This will be done from two different perspectives. One perspective is through the breast cancer afflicted heroine, who asserts herself as a free thinker and a woman of science, in a society where priests have a strong influence at all social levels, and most women settle for housekeeping. The other is also through Elizabeth, together with other minor characters, who dare question some of the basic well-established ideological assumptions, in a series of examples where the author skilfully raises two parallel dichotomies, namely, FAITH versus REASON, and DARKNESS versus LIGHT. At a linguistic level, the present analysis relies on precepts from Frame Semantics, Conceptual Metaphor Theory, and Cognitive Grammar. These insights prove a most useful method of approach to a narrative text while unearthing the author’s ideological world view.
References
Barton, David. 2007. Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Carney, James. 2017. The space between your ears. Construal level theory, cognitive science and science fiction. In Michael Burke & Emily T. Troscianko (eds.), Cognitive literary science, 73–92. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190496869.003.0005Search in Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Eve Sweetser. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions, 43–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486760Search in Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara & Lieven Vandelanotte. 2009. Judging distances: Mental spaces, distance, and viewpoint in literary discourse. In Geert Brône & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive poetics. Goals, gains and gaps, 319–369. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Deignan, Alice, Jeannette Littlemore & Semino Elena. 2013. Figurative language, genre and register, 10–22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Emmott, Catherine. 1997. Narrative comprehension: A discourse perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar
Emmot, Catherine. 2002. “Split selves” in fiction and in medical “life stories”. Cognitive linguistic theory and narrative practice. In Jonathan Culpeper & Semino Elena (eds.), Cognitive stylistics. Language and cognition in text analysis, 153–181. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.4324/9781003060789-27Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 1996. Blending as a central process of grammar. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse, and language, 113–130. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI). Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J & The Linguistic Society of Korea. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the morning calm, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00424-7Search in Google Scholar
Fowler, Roger. 1986. Linguistic criticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, Chloe, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell & Wenjuan Yuan. 2014. Introduction. In Chloe Harrison, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell & Wenjuan Yuan (eds.), Cognitive grammar in literature, 1–16. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.17.01harSearch in Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2016. Conceptual metaphor theory. In Semino Elena & Zsófia Demjén (eds.), The Routledge handbook of metaphor and language, 13–27. London & New York: Taylor and Francis.Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. London: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Maher, Eamon. 2006. John McGahern and the commemoration of traditional rural Ireland. Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review 95. 279–290.Search in Google Scholar
McGahern, John. 1963. The Barracks. London: Faber and Faber.Search in Google Scholar
McIntyre, Dan. 2006. Point of view in plays. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.3Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Alan. 2004. Fictional minds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco J. 2014. On the nature and the scope of metonymy in linguistic description and explanation: Towards settling some controversies. In John R. Taylor & Jeannette Littlemore (eds.), The Bloomsbury companion to cognitive linguistics, 143–166. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2002. A cognitive stylistic approach to mind style in narrative fiction. In Semino Elena & Culpeper Jonathan (eds.), Cognitive stylistics, 95–122. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.1.07semSearch in Google Scholar
Simpson, Paul. 1993. Language, ideology, and point of view. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203312612Search in Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2011. The contemporary theory of metaphor - now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1). 26–64.10.1075/bct.56.03steSearch in Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter. 2012 [2009]. Texture. A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.3366/edinburgh/9780748625819.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Stockwell, Peter. 2014. War, worlds and cognitive grammar. In Chloe Harrison, Louise Nuttall, Peter Stockwell & Wenjuan Yuan (eds.), Cognitive grammar in literature, 19–34. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lal.17.02stoSearch in Google Scholar
Sullivan, Karen. 2013. Frames and constructions in metaphoric language, 64–76. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.14Search in Google Scholar
Toolan, Michael J. 1988. Narrative: A critical linguistic introduction. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
