In:Individual Differences in Anaphora Resolution: Language and cognitive effects
Edited by Georgia Fotiadou and Ianthi Maria Tsimpli
[Language Faculty and Beyond 18] 2023
► pp. 94–116
Beyond explicit references
Published online: 2 November 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.18.04pu
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.18.04pu
Abstract
The present study explores the use of zero anaphor in discourse from
a cognitive-functional perspective. Although zero anaphora is
commonly considered to be a dividing parameter of linguistic
typology between languages like Chinese and English, the study
argues that it is a discourse phenomenon that manifests highest
degree of cognitive accessibility and figures prominently in coding
topicality and signaling maximum coherence in discourse processing.
The study proposes a general zero-anaphor principle and
demonstrates that, using text data from Chinese and English, zero
anaphora is indeed a function of topicality and thematic coherence,
and its use in discourse is remarkably similar between these two
languages that are considered typologically very different.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Cognitive and functional aspects of reference tracking
- 3.A general zero anaphor principle and its application
- 3.1Thematic coherence
- 3.2Major and minor thematic discontinuity
- 4.A ‘Fill-in-the-blanks’ study
- 4.1Stimulus material
- 4.2Method and procedure
- 4.3Results and discussion
- 5.Conclusion
Notes References
References (50)
Anderson, A., Garrod S. C. & Sanford A. J. (1983). The
accessibility of pronominal antecedents as a function of
episode shifts in narrative
text. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 35A, 427–440.
(1994). Interpreting
anaphoric expressions: a cognitive versus a pragmatic
approach. Journal
of
Linguistics, 30, 3–42.
Black, J. B. & Bower G. H. (1979). Episodes
as chunks in narrative
memory. Journal
of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behavior, 18, 109–118.
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness,
contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point
of
view. In C. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 25–55). New York: Academic Press.
(1987). Cognitive
constraints on information
flow. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence
and grounding in
discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1996). Inferring
identifiability and
accessibility. In Thorstein, F. & Gundel, J. K. (Eds), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 37–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Comrie, B. (1988). Passive and voice. In Shibatani, M. (Ed.), Passive and Voice (pp. 9–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora,
discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and
French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing
motivations. In Haiman, J. (Ed.), Iconicity
in
syntax (pp. 343–65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fox, B. A. (1987). Anaphora in popular written English narratives. In Tomlin, R. S. (ed.), Coherence
and grounding in
discourse (pp. 121–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language Comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Givón, T. (1988). The pragmatics of word order: Predictability, importance, and attention. In Hammond, M., Moravcsik, E., & Wirth, J. (Eds), Studies in Syntactic Typology (pp. 243-284). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(Ed.). (1983). Topic
continuity in discourse: Quantitative cross-language
studies (pp. 343–63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1993). English
grammar: A function-based introduction, Vol. I &
II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1995). Coherence
in text vs. coherence in
mind. In Gernsbacher, A. M. & Givón, T. (Eds), Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Typological Studies in
Language, 31 (pp. 59–115). John Benjamins: Amsterdam.
(2001). Towards
a neuro-cognitive interpretation of
‘context’. Pragmatics
and
Cognition, 9(2), 175–201.
(2009). The
genesis of syntactic
complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(1996). Relevance theory meets the givenness hierarch: An account of inferrables. In Thorstein, F. & Gundel, J. (Eds), Reference and Referent Accessibility (pp. 141–154). John Benjamins.
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski R. (1993). Cognitive
status and the form of referring expressions in
discourse. Language, 69, 274–307.
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A
performance theory of order and
constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(1979). Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 135–57). New York: Academic Press.
Holmberg, A., Nayudu, A., & Sheehan M. (2009). Three partial null-subject languages: a comparison of brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi. Studia linguistica, 63 (1), 59–97.
Hopper, P. J. (1979). Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language, 3(1), 37–64.
Huang, J. C. (1989). Pro-drop in Chinese. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. J. (Eds), The
null subject
parameter (Studies
in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
15) (pp. 185–214). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Jaeggli, O. & Safir K. J. (1989). The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. J. (Eds), The null subject parameter: Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15 (pp. 1–44). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Press.
Li, C. N. & Thompson S. A. (1976). Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Li, C. N. (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 457–489). New York: Academic Press.
Li, W. (2005). Topic
chains in Chinese: A discourse analysis and applications in
language teaching. LINCOM studies in Asian
linguistics 57. Muenchen: LINCOM Europa.
Longacre, R. E. (1979). The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 116–34). New York: Academic Press.
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, E., & Tyler, L. K. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (Eds), Speech, Place, and Action (pp. 339–78). Chichester: Wiley.
Oberauer, K. (2002). Access
to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of
attention. Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 28(3), 411–421.
(2006). Is
the focus of attention in working memory expanded through
practice? Journal
of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 32(2), 197–214.
Pu, M.-M. (1995). Anaphoric
patterning in English and Mandarin narrative
production. Discourse
Processes, 19(2), 279–300.
(1997). Zero
anaphora and grammatical relations in
Mandarin. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Grammatical Relations: Typological studies in Language, 35 (pp. 283–322). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null
Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro. Linguistic
Inquiry, 17(3), 501–557.
Shibatani, M. (1991). Grammaticalization of topic into subject. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (Eds), Approaches to Grammaticalization, Vol. 2 (pp. 92–133). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomlin, R. S. (1985). Foreground-background
information and the syntax of
subordination. Text, 5, 85–122.
(1987). Linguistic
reflections on cognitive
events. In Tomlin, R. S. (Ed.), Coherence
and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a
Symposium. (pp. 455–479). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Tomlin, R. S. & Pu, M. M. (1991). The management of reference in Mandarin discourse. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(1), 65–93.