Cover not available
Part of
Linguistic Foundations of Narration in Spoken and Sign Languages
Edited by Annika Hübl and Markus Steinbach
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 247] 2018
► pp. 93–118

Discourse prominence and the selection of anaphora – evidence from pronouns in historical German

| Bergische Universität Wuppertal
Based on the analysis of the distributional properties of different types of pronouns in historical German, the present paper investigates discourse prominence as a factor governing the selection of anaphora in the discourse. It claims that particular types of pronouns refer to entities which are more salient than others not only with respect to the immediately preceding context, but also with respect to the global prominence of the respective referents in the entire discourse, including the subsequent context.
Article outline
  • 1.The role of discourse prominence in the choice of anaphora – introductory remarks
  • 2.Previous ways of determining salience in pronominal choice and resolution
  • 3.Case studies
    • 3.1Data and method
    • 3.2Case study I: 3rd person pronouns vs. simple demonstratives in OHG
    • 3.3Case study II: her/ther/theser vs. (g)ener in OHG
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.247.05pet
References (44)
References
Text editions
MF The Monsee Fragments. Newly collated text with introduction, grammatical treatise and exhaustive glossary, and a photo-litographic fac-simile, ed George Allison Hench, Strassburg: Trübner. 1890.Google Scholar
NBCons Die Werke Notkers des Deutschen. Vol. 1–2. Boethius, De consolatione philosophiae Books I/II and III/IV, ed Petrus W. Tax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1986–1988.Google Scholar
NPs Die Werke Notkers des Deutschen. Vol. 8–10. Der Psalter, ed Petrus W. Tax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1979–1983.Google Scholar
O Otfrids Evangelienbuch, ed Oskar Erdmann, Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1973.Google Scholar
T Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56, ed Achim Masser, Göttingen: Vandenhœk & Ruprecht. 1994.Google Scholar
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Werke, Kommentare und Register. Hamburger Ausgabe in 14 Bänden, ed Erich Trunz and Lieselotte Blumenthal. Band 9. Autobiographische Schriften I. 14th ed. München: Beck. 2002.Google Scholar
Secondary literature
Abraham, W. 2002. Pronomina im Diskurs: Deutsche Personal- und Demonstrativpronomina unter ‘Zentrierungsperspektive‘. Grammatische Überlegungen zu einer Teiltheorie der Textkohärenz. Sprachwissenschaft 27: 447–491.Google Scholar
Almor, A. & Nair, V. A. 2007. The form of referential expressions in discourse. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2): 84–99.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24: 65–87.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects [Human Cognitive Processing 8], T. Sanders, J. Schilperoord, & W. Spooren (eds), 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, J. E. 2010. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4: 187–203.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. 1993. Reference to Abstract Objects in Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel, K. & Weiß, H. 2011. Pro-drop in the history of German. From Old High German to the modern dialects. In Empty Pronouns, P. Gallmann, & M. Wratil (eds), 21–51. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Axel, K. 2007. Studies in Old High German Syntax: Left Sentence Periphery, Verb Placement and Verb-second [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 112]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, O. 1923. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Vol. I: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. A. Nomen. Pronomen . Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bildhauer, F. & Cook, P. 2010. German multiple fronting and expected topic hood. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 68–79. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Bosch, P. & Umbach, C. 2007. Reference determination for demonstrative pronouns. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 48: 39–51.Google Scholar
Bosch, P., Katz, G. & Umbach, C. 2007. The non-subject bias of German demonstrative pronouns. In Anaphors in Text: Cognitive, Formal and Applied Approaches to Anaphoric Reference [Studies in Language Companion Series 86], M. Schwarz-Friesel, M. Consten & M. Knees (eds), 145–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosch, P., Rozario, T. & Zhao, Y. 2003. D emonstrative pronouns and personal pronouns. German der vs. er . In Proceedings of the EACL Workshop on the Computational Treatment of Anaphora in Budapest 2003 . Stroudsberg PA: ACL. [URL]
Braune, W. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik, Vol. I: Laut- und Formenlehre , 15th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W. & Pollard, C. J. 1987. A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, July 06–09, Stanford, California, 155–162. Stroudsberg PA: ACL.DOI logo
Cozijn, R., Commandeur, E., Vonk, W. & Noordman, L. G. M. 2011. The time course of the use of implicit causality information in the processing of pronouns: A visual world paradigm study. Journal of Memory and Language 64(4): 381–403.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deichsel, A. 2011. The discourse effects of the indefinite demonstrative dieser in German. In Proceedings of the 23rd European Summer School in Logic, Language, and Information (ESSLLI), 1st–12th August 2011, Ljubljana, Slovenia. 70–77. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Deichsel, A. & von Heusinger, K. 2011. The cataphoric potential of indefinites in German. In Anaphora and Reference Resolution. 8th Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution Colloquium, I. Henrickx, S. L. Devi, A. Branco & R. Mitkov (eds), 144–156. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Demske, U. 2005. Weshalb Demonstrativpronomina nicht immer Determinantien sind. In Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie, F.-J. d’Avis (ed.), 53–80. Göteborg: Göteborger Germanistische Forschungen.Google Scholar
Duden. 1995. Die Grammatik, 5th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Garnham, A. & Cowles, H. W. 2008. Looking both ways. The JANUS model of noun phrase anaphor processing. In Reference. Interdisciplinary Perspectives, J. Gundel & N. Hedberg (eds), 246–272. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garnham, A., Traxler, M., Oakhill, J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. 1996. The locus of implicit causality effects in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 35(4): 517–543.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1981. On the development of the numeral ‘one’ as an indefinite marker. Folia Linguistica Historica 2(2): 35–53.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse. An introduction. In Topic Continuity in Discourse. A Quantitative Cross-language Study [Typological Studies in Language 3], T. Givón (ed.), 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grüning, A. & Kibrik, A. A. 2005. Modelling referential choice in discourse: A cognitive calculative approach and a neutral network approach, In Anaphora Processing. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computations Modelling [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 263], A. Branco, T. McEnery & R. Mitkov (eds), 163–197. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharsky, R. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69(2): 274–307.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haferland, H. 2013. Vokale Kultur, Hörgedächtnis und Textgrammatik. Zur Pronominalisierung in mittelhochdeutschen Texten. In ‘der âventiuren dônʼ: Klang, Hören und Hörgemeinschaften in der deutschen Literatur des Mittelalters, I. Bennewitz & W. Layher (eds), 45–62. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Helbig, G. & Buscha, J. 1987. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht, 10th edn. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Hentschel, E. & Weydt, H. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik, 3rd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ionin, T. 2006. This is definitely specific: Specificity and definiteness in article systems. Natural Language Semantics 14: 175–234.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Pragmatic variation among specificity markers. In Different Kinds of Specificity across Languages, C. Ebert & S. Hinterwimmer (eds), 75–104. Heidelberg: Springer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petrova, S. & Solf, M. 2010. Pronominale Wiederaufnahme im älteren Deutsch. Personal- vs. Demonstrativpronomen im Althochdeutschen. In Historische Textgrammatik und historische Syntax des Deutschen. Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven, A. Ziegler & C. Braun (eds), 339–364. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed.), 223–255. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Solf, M. 2008. Status und Zugänglichkeit von Diskursreferenten im Althochdeutschen am Beispiel der Tatianbilinue Cod. Sang. 56. In Die Formen der Wiederaufnahme im älteren Deutschen, Y. Desportes, F. Simmler & C. Wich-Reif (eds), 177–197. Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
Strube, M. & Hahn, U. 1999. Functional centering – Grounding referential coherence in information structure. Computational Linguistics 25(3): 309–344.Google Scholar
Vinckel, H. 2006. Die diskursstrategische Bedeutung des Nachfelds im Deutschen. Eine Untersuchung anhand politischer Reden der Gegenwartssprache. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Vinckel-Roisin, H. 2011. Wortstellungsvariation und Salienz von Diskursreferenten. Die Besetzung des Nachfeldes in deutschen Pressetexten als kohärenzstiftendes Mittel. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 39: 377–404.Google Scholar
Wright, S. & Givón, T. 1987. The pragmatics of indefinite reference: Quantified text-based studies. Studies in Language 11(1): 1–33.DOI logoGoogle Scholar