International audienc

part of the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. Th e use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. Th e publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

This paper aims at showing why the stylistician can be construed as a prolific "impostor" in a most positive sense: pledged to no specific linguistic prophet, she can opt for different theoretical linguistic tools (in the sphere of pragmatics, critical discourse analysis, cognitive grammar, etc.) depending on her object of study and what her research question is. The liberty claimed by the stylistician explains why stylistics is the "undisciplined" child of linguistics, shirking any clear definition of its boundaries. It will be argued that stylistics can only exist as a cross-disciplinary field given its conception of language as fundamentally contextualized. If it was a discipline determined by clear-cut pre-established boundaries, stylistics would be far more "disciplined" but would run the risk of serving only itself. The broad goal of this paper is thus to evince that the "indisciplinarity" of stylistics constitutes its very def ining essence. With this aim in mind, it will demonstrate what stylistics owes to other disciplines, what it shares with similar language-based disciplines and what it can offer to other fields or practices of knowledge.

International audienceThe article focuses on the specific use of the second person pronoun in Iain Banks’s Complicity and the complex relationship it entertains with its first-person counterpart as the novel alternates between first- and second-person narratives. The personal pronouns construct two completely opposed mindstyles: the highly personal narrative of the first-person protagonist contrasts with the depersonalised style of the ‘you’ protagonist-narrator. Not only is the second person pronoun a grammatical ‘imposter’ (Collins & Postal, 2012)—it actually hides an ‘I’—but it is a psychological one as the narrator seems to hide his real self behind a convenient ‘you persona’. In addition, the article brings to light the pragmatic paradox ‘self-address you’ embodies in the peculiar position it assigns to the readers. If it tends to ‘encroach upon’ their territory, forcing them into complicity, it is also guilty of manipulating their emotions. Lastly, the linguistic and stylistic analysis of Banks’s novel will here be coupled with cognitive and psycholinguistic approaches in order to understand how the reader switches from one ‘frame’ of mind to the other. Particularly helpful is the ‘Rhetorical Processing Framework’ discussed by Sanford and Emmott (2012) in order to grasp how readers construct mental representations to process the writer’s sometimes misleading style