Cover not available
Part of
The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse: Applications and implications
Edited by María de los Ángeles Gómez González, Francisco José Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Gonzálvez-García and Angela Downing
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 247] 2014
► pp. 189–208

Nominal reference and the dynamics of discourse

A cognitive-functional approach

| University of Leuven, Belgium
In this paper I will address what appear to be some important gaps in the traditional approach to nominal reference as a cohesion-creating resource: (i) ignoring of relations other than co-referentiality, such as those expressed by quantifying determiners, (ii) neglect of the contribution made by type specifications to the reference function; (iii) restriction of the type specifications to those lexically predicated by the NP itself, (iv) discounting of the cumulative build-up of information relating to referential sets and referent classification in the mind of the reader. In the first half of the article, I survey the cognitive instructions given by the main determiner types of NPs: definite versus indefinite identifiers, and relative versus absolute quantifiers. In the second half of the article I develop and illustrate an alternative analysis of discourse referents that does take into account elements (i) to (iv).
Published online: 16 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.247.10dav
References (21)
References
Butler, Christopher S. 1985. Systemic Linguistics. Theory and Applications . London: Batsford.Google Scholar
. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-­Functional Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 63]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 1978. Reference to Kinds in English . Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1996. “Inferring Identifiability and Accessibility.” In Reference and Referent Accessibility , ed. by Thorstein Fretheim, and Jeanette K. Gundel, 37–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Close, Reginald A. 1975. A Reference Grammar for Students of English . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Davidse, Kristin. 2004. “The Interaction of Quantification and Identification in English Determiners”. In Language, Culture and Mind CSDL 2002 , ed. by Michel Achard, and Suzanne Kemmer, 507–533. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
DuBois, John W. 1980. “Beyond Definiteness: The Trace of Identity in Discourse.” In The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production , ed. by Wallace L. Chafe, 203–274. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
Emmott, Catherine. 1992. “Splitting the Referent: An Introduction to Narrative Enactors.” In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice , ed. by Martin Davies, and Louise J. Ravelli, 221–228. London: Harold Pinter.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeannette K., Nancy Hedberg, and Ron Zacharski. 1993. “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. ” Language 69: 274–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English . London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1978. Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction . London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1978. “Review of Halliday and Hasan 1976.” Lingua 45: 333–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 2. Descriptive Application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. ” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 143–188.Google Scholar
Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R. 1992. English Text: System and Structure . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R., and Pam Peters. 1985. “On the Analysis of Exposition.” In Discourse on Discourse: Workshop Reports from the Macquarie Workshop on Discourse Analysis [Applied Linguistics Association of Australia Occasional Papers 7], ed. by H. Ruqaiya, 61–92. ­Australia: Applied Linguistics Association of Australia.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1977. “Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English.” Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1992. “Trust the Text: The Implications Are Daunting.” In Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice , ed. by Martin Davies, and Louise J. Ravelli, 5–19. London: Harold Pinter.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy. 1999. “Neurolinguistic and Syntactic Evidence for Basic Level Meaning in Proper Names.” Functions of Language 6: 95–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar