Cover not available

In:Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 268] 2016
► pp. 81–102

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Reference assignment in pronominal argument languages

A relevance-theoretic perspective

 | University of Nairobi
Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.04sch
Using data from Toposa and Kiswahili, this article demonstrates that the reference assignment in pronominal languages does not only constrain the process of identifying the intended referent, but the pronominal marking on the verb also assists with disambiguating whether a nominal expression has attributive or referential value. A nominal expression enters the discourse as underspecified regarding for referential/attributive meaning and therefore needs to be enriched through saturation. The pronominal marking on the verb triggers the process of enrichment. If the overt pronoun occurs in addition to the default incorporated pronoun on the verb, it carries the procedural marker of identificational or contrastive focus, similar to the contrastive stress in English.
References (35)
References
Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Linguistic Meaning and Relevance: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blass, Regina. 1990. Relevance Relations in Discourse: A Study with Special Reference to Sissala. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. New York: Mouton Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cram, David, and Paul Hedley. 2005. “Pronouns and Procedural Meaning: The Relevance of Spaghetti Code and Paranoid Delusion.” Oxford University Working Papers in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics 10: 187–210.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. “Reference and Definite Description.” The Philosophical Review 75: 281–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire: Principes de semantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1975. The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hall, Alison. 2004. “The Meaning of but: A Procedural Reanalysis.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 16: 199–236.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedley, Paul. 2005. “Pronouns, Procedures and Relevance Theory.” Durham and Newcastle Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 41–55.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. Anaphora, Relevance and the Conceptual/Procedural Distinction. PhD diss., University of Oxford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iten, Corinne. 1997. “Because and Although: A Case of Duality?” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 1–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “ Even if and even: The Case for an Inferential Scalar Account.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 119–157.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Ken Safir (eds). 1989. The Null-Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. “Empty Categories, Case, and Configurationality.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2 (1): 39–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiss, Katalin É. 1995. Discourse Configurational Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powell, George. 1999. “The Referential-Attributive Distinction – A Cognitive Account.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 101–125.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schröder, Helga. 2008. Word Order in Toposa: An Aspect of Multiple Feature-checking. SIL International and the University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics 142. Dallas: SIL International.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Incorporated Subject Pronouns in Word Order Typology.” In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress of African Linguistics, Cologne 2009, ed. by Matthias 
Brenzinger and Anne M. Fehn, 201–213. Cologne: Köppe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. “Clause Chaining in Toposa: A Pragmatic Approach.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 9 (1): 25–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schröder, Martin. 2010. Toposa Traditional Texts. Nairobi: SIL International. Manuscript.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Unger, Christoph. 2006. Genre, Relevance and Global Coherence. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Exploring the Borderline between Procedural Encoding and Pragmatic Inference.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by M. Victoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 103–127. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D., Jr., and Randy LaPolla. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Watters, John R. 1979. “Focus in Aghem: A Study of its Formal Correlates and Typology. Part 3.” In Aghem Grammatical Structure: With Special Reference to Noun Classes, Tense-aspect and Focus Marking, ed. by Larry M. Hyman, 137–197. Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 7. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deidre. 1992. “Relevance and Understanding.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 165–191.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2011. “The Conceptual-Procedural Distinction: Past, Present and Future.” In Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, ed. by M. Victoria Escandell Vidal, Manuel Leonetti, and Aoife Ahern, 3–31. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1993. “Linguistic Form and Relevance.” Lingua 90: 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Tim Wharton. 2006. “Relevance and Prosody.” Journal of Pragmatics 38: 1559–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue