Cover not available
Part of
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

 | University of Maine, Farmington
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.
Keywords: cognitive-functional approach, working memory, zero anaphora, cognitive accessibility, topicality, discourse structure, thematic coherence
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
Published online: 2 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lfab.18.04pu
References (50)
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing Noun-phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge/Croom Helm.Google Scholar
(1994). Interpreting anaphoric expressions: a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journal of Linguistics, 30, 3–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, J. B. & Bower G. H. (1979). Episodes as chunks in narrative memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 109–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In Thorstein, F. & Gundel, J. K. (Eds), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 37–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Child, L. (2009). Gone Tomorrow. New York: Delacorte Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Chu, C. C. (1998). A discourse grammar of mandarin Chinese. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1988). Passive and voice. In Shibatani, M. (Ed.), Passive and Voice (pp. 9–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, discourse, and understanding: Evidence from English and French. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1985). Competing motivations. In Haiman, J. (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (pp. 343–65). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, L. (2008). Say Goodbye: An FBI Profiler Novel. New York: Bantam Dell.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1990). Language Comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1979). On Understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: Quantitative cross-language studies (pp. 343–63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). Mind, Code and Context: Essays in Pragmatics. New Jersey: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
(1993). English grammar: A function-based introduction, Vol. I & II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Towards a neuro-cognitive interpretation of ‘context’. Pragmatics and Cognition, 9(2), 175–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1985). Shared knowledge and topicality. Journal of pragmatics, 9(1), 83–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69, 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harding, P. (2009). Tinkers. New York: Bellevue Literary Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1977). Paragraph structure and pronominalization. Papers in Linguistics, 10, 77–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1979). Organizational patterns in discourse. In Givón, T. (Ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 135–57). New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1979). Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language, 3(1), 37–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Li, W. (2005). Topic chains in Chinese: A discourse analysis and applications in language teaching. LINCOM studies in Asian linguistics 57. Muenchen: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
(2006). Is the focus of attention in working memory expanded through practice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(2), 197–214.Google Scholar
Pu, M.-M. (1995). Anaphoric patterning in English and Mandarin narrative production. Discourse Processes, 19(2), 279–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry, 17(3), 501–557.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. (1985). Foreground-background information and the syntax of subordination. Text, 5, 85–122.Google Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. & Pu, M. M. (1991). The management of reference in Mandarin discourse. Cognitive Linguistics, 2(1), 65–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tsao, F. F. (1990). A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese: The First Step Towards Discourse. Taipei: Student Book Co.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies in Discourse Comprehension. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar