Proper Nouns and Pronouns

Tilburg University

Proper Nouns and Pronouns

van Vliet, S.M.K.

Publication date:

2008

Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

van Vliet, S. M. K. (2008). Proper Nouns and Pronouns. LOT.

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Proper

nouns and

pronouns

Trans 10 fax: +3130253 6000

3512JKUtrecht e-mail:_{lot@let.uu.nl} The Netherlands _{http://www. lotschool.nl}

Cover Illustration: © Sol LeWitt, 1997,Wavylineswith black_{border (detail), c/o}

Pictoright 2008.

ISBN 978-90-78328-49-0

NI.JR 616

Proper

nouns and

pronouns

The production

of

referential

expressions

in

narrative

discourse

Eigennamen en Pronomina

De productie van referentiele uitdrukkingen in narratieve teksten

Proefschrift

ter verkrijging vande graadvandoctor

aandeUniversiteitvan_Tilburg, op gezag vanderector magnificus,

prof. dr. F.A. van derDuynSchouten,

in het openbaarte_verdedigen

ten overstaan van een door het collegevoor_promoties

aangewezencommissie

in de aula vandeUniversiteit

op vrijdag28maart 2008

om 16.15 uur

door

Sarah Maria Karmijn van Vliet

Prof. dr. A.A. Maes

Copromotor: Dr. J. Schilperoord

Acknowledgement ..11

Chapter1.Introduction... 13

1.1 The use of referentialexpressionsinnarrative discourse... 13

1.2 A referencepointapproach todiscourse reference... 18

1.3 Approachand set-up

ofthe study. 70

1.4 Research_questions... 1.5 Contentsoverview . 77

Chapter2. _{Reference points}anddominionsinnarratives.Adiscourselevel exploration ofthereference_pointmodel

of

anaphora... 25

2.1 Introduction...25

2.2Discourse referentsasmental entities...25

2.3The reference_pointmodel

of

_anaphora......„„„..28

2.3.1NominalsemantirR 78

2.3.2Sentential anaphora constraints 2.4 Adiscourse level reference_pointmodel

of

anaphora... 35

2.4.1 Prerequisites foradiscourse level reference_pointmodel... 35

2.4.2 Characteristics

of

reference_pointsanddominions in narratives... 36

2.4.3An illustration ofthenarrative referencepointmodel... 38

2.5 Factors inthenarrative reference_pointmodel... 38

2.5.1 Protagonists 19

2.5.2 Intervening reference .. 40

2.5.3Syntacticfunction.. 2.5.4_{Linear position...} 2.5.5Referential distance... „... ...43

2.5.6 Episode structureinnarrative€ 44

2.5.7 Character perspective ..50

2.5.8 Interaction

of

factors...-52

2.6 Summary S4

Chapter

3._{Operationalization}

of

factors_affectingreferential choice in

narrativeg -57

3.1 Introduction...

3.3Interveningreference 58 3.4Syntactic

function 59

3.5 _{Linear position...} 3.6Referential distance... 3.7Episodestruct,irp 61 3.7.1 _Episode

_{shifts 62}

3.7.2 Episodeanddistancefactors 62

3.7.3 Episodeanddiscourse markers ... 63

3.8Visual_viewpointandcharacter_{perspective 64}

3.8.1Visual_viewpoint... 3.8.2_{Character perspective 66}

3.9 Perceptualattention 70

3.10 Summary 71 Chapter4._{Collecting production data.}Elicitation ofa_corpusofwritten narrativeR 73 4.1 Introdurtinn 73 4.2 A model

of

_{languageproduction...} 4.3Visual stimuli:verbalizing comic picturesasproduction task... 75

4.3.1 Characteristics ofthecomic_{genre... 76}

4.3.2 Readingandverbalizing

comics 85

4.4 The visual stimuli ... 4.4.1 Episode

shifts 89

4.4.2_Viewpointshifts .... 4.4.3 PagebreakQ 90

4.5 The construction ofa_corpus

ofwritten

narratives... 4.5.1 Variationin narrative production... 91

4.5.2 Elicitation t,qk 92

4.6 Analysis ofa_{single story 93}

Chapter 5. Thedistribution

_ofproper

nounsand_pronouns.

A

_frequency analysis ofthe_{collected corpus} 103 5.1 Introduction 103 5.2 Characterization ofthe_corpus.......103

5.2.1 General characteristicsandselections 103 5.2.2 Types

of

expression used in reference totheprotagonist... 107

5.3 Syntactic function 110 5.4_{Linear position...-.-.}...111

5.5 _{Episode structure...} ... 112

5.5.1 _{Episode shifts} 112 5.5.2 Episodeanddistancefactors 114 5.5.3 Episodeanddiscourse markers...115

5.5.4Situation model factors...116

5.7 Pagebre91(4 124

5.8 Discusginn 125

Chapter 6.The_probability

of

_{proper nouns.}

A

_{regressionanalysis of the}

collected cnrpi,9 131

6.1 Introduction- .131

6.2 Motivation fortheregressionanalygk 131

6.3 Description ofthe_{logisticregressionanalysis ... 133}

6.4Predictor variablesand_{hypotheses ...135}

6.5Material...„„„„„„.... 138

6.6_Logisticregression models ... ... .140

6.6.1 Regression modelsbasedon constant... 140

6.6.2_{Regression models}basedonreferential distance... 142

6.6.3Regression modelsbasedondiscourse-structural factors and intervening reference... 146

6.6.4_{Regression models}basedon syntacticfunctionandotherfactors... 152

6.6.5_{Regression model}based on _{all significant}factors ... 154

6.7Discus inn 156 Chapter7._{Meaning and use}of_{proper nouns}andpronouns. Conclusion and Discussion... 161

7.1Concluqinn 161 7.2 Epilogue... „... 169

Appendices... „... 173

References...„„„„„„„„„„„„„...187

Samenvatting inhetNederlandg 193

Acknowledgements

I consider myself very fortunate to have such wonderful supervisors, colleagues,

family andfriends. Let me take this opportunity to express my gratitude to some of

the peoplewho playedanimportant role in this project.

First, I wishto thank my daily supervisor Joost Schilperoord. Thank you

for your excellent way

of

explaining

things, for

your patience in

spite of my

stubbornness attimes, forthetimesyouprevented mefrommaking methodological mistakes, and

for

keeping me on

track. Most of all I wish

to

thank you for your

enthusiasm for this project and our inspirational talks onallmatterslinguistic.

I am very grateful tomy promotor LeoNoordman for his supervision and

support. Your meticulous comments were tremendously helpful, and often forced

me to clarify my line

of

thinking. Thank you

for

pointing out mynon-sequiturs and for askingsuch

difficult

questions.

I am alsovery grateful to mypromotor Fons Maes for his many invaluable comments and his passionate speeches about where the dissertation should be headed._{Thank you, also,}

for

alwaysbeing so_{helpful throughout}this_{project, both in} practicalandlinguisticmatters.

Dear Joost, Leo, and Fons, I will miss the talks wehad among the four of

us. Our _{meetings were always pleasant} and constructive, and I have learned a lot from all of you.

A special word

of

thanks is duetoFrederike van der Leek. Her lectures on 'language,world, and mind'

initially

inspired me to graduate in linguistics, and her

supervision of my masters thesis made me so _{enthusiastic that I applied for the}

'referential_expressions'project, resulting in this dissertation.

Huub vanden_Berghdeserves a_{million thank yous forhis invaluable help}

with the multi-level analysis, which allowed me to

write what I

now think is the

most interesting part of this book, namelytheregressionanalysisreported in chapter 6. Thank you ever so much.

Throughout my Ph.D. project I have hadmany helpful comments from or

interesting conversationswithscholars during conferences, LOTcourses,orthrough

email correspondence. For their various contributions to my

thinking - some of

which did and some

of

which didn't end up in this work - I wish to thank Wallace

Chafe, Barbara Dancygier, Catherine Emmott, TheoJanssen, Leonoor Oversteegen,

Ellen Prince, Russell Tomlin,and _{Carel van Wijk, with apologies to those I might}

have forgotten.

I am grateful to themembers ofthedissertation committee,

for

_{taking the}

time to readthemanuscript and

for

theirhelpfulcommentsatvarious points during

this project: Huub van

den Bergh, Frederike van der Leek, Jost Sanders, Arie

Verhagen,andWietske Vonk.

I must also mention _{my colleagues at} the _{Discourse Studies department,}

Pashiera Barkhuysen,andothers._{Thank youfor making me feel at home}at_Tilburg

University from theveryfirst day Istartedworkingthere.

I also wish to thank my _{fellow (former)} Ph.D. students outside Tilburg,

Ninke Stukker, Maaike Belien, Mirna Pit, Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul, and Esther

Pascual,_{for making Ph.D. life}so_{pleasurable during conferences,} LOTcourses, and other_meetings.

Of course I must thank _{my non-linguistic friends}

for

_{being such good}

friends. Among the lovely

people I know I wish

to thank especially Annemarie Jongkoen, Maartje Henket, Gerda de Dreu, Lavie van _{Ingen, Anne} Marie _Koper,

PantherContent,Yolanda Jolie,Erwin Smit,andMartine_Prange.

A special word

of

thanks is also due to _{Liesbeth Verschure,} my father's

wife, andtheloveliest step mom in theworld. Thank you for your loveandsupport throughoutthosemanyyears, and

for

being suchagreat'oma'toDavid.

And

of

course _my father, Pieter van Vliet, deserves _{mentioning. Daddy}

dearest, you are a greatfather. It means so much to me to have a father who has

always had

_{faith in me, and}

has always encouraged me to do the

things I am

passionate about.Andnever adull moment...

And last, butcertainlynot least, I wish tothank my love, StefKegel. Thank you so much fortaking such good care

of

David andme. Thanks to your undying

dedication andsupport, I was able to keep onworking morning, noon, and

night, if

necessary. I trustthere will nowbeplenty of time forthe three of ustorelax, enjoy,

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 The useof referentialexpressionsinnarrativediscourse

This study addresses the phenomenon

of

reference maintenance in discourse: throughout the study I

will

focus on consecutive reference to protagonists in

narratives. More specifically, I willinvestigate the conceptual, discourse-structural,

and linguistic factors that determine a narrator's referential choices during the

production

ofDutch

writtennarrative discourse.

In discourse,speakers andwritersusevariousmeans torefertopeopleandthings: a single conceptualizedperson, forexample, can be referred to using various types of

referential expression. Considerthe_followingsentences:

(1) a. A girl in a red coat just lefta_{message for you at the}counter

b.77;e

girlyou

werejust mlking to leftamessage for you atthecounter

c. 77;at girlover there leftamessage for you at the counter d. 77,is girl just lefta_{message for you at}thecounter e. 77:e girl lefta_{message for you at}thecounter f. ZadieSmith leftamessage for you atthecounter g. Zadie lefta_{message for you at}thecounter

h. The 24-years old best-selling novelist from North London leftamessage for

YOU

i. She lefta_{message for you at}thecounter j. She lefta_{message for you at}thecounter

k. She wrotea_{message for you and 0 left it at}thecounter

The italicizednoun phrases in thesesentences can all be used

for

reference to the same person, the author Zadie Smith, depending on the context in

which the

sentence isuttered. Letme_{describe just a few of}thedifferentcontexts: Sentence (a)

maybeuttered byaperson who does not knoworrecognizetheauthor, but saw her

deliveramessageandsubsequently reports it tothe addressee. Example (c) may be used whenthereferent Zadie Smithisunknown tothediscourse participantsbut

still

intheir vicinity, thatis,withinthephysicalcontext ofthe discourse.

A

sentence like

(g) may be used

for

example in a situation in which the discourse participants are

familiar orevenfriends withtheauthor. Sentence (i) can be used whentheauthor is

currently the

topic of

a conversation between the discourse

participants, in a

sequencelike: I just saw Zadie Smith leaving the building. She left a message for

expressions used in different contexts range from elaborate relative clause NPs to pronouns orzero anaphora.

In narrative discourse, narrators may refer tocharactersin various ways. In

fact, it isvery commonforcharacters tobeconsecutivelycodedbydifferent types of

referential expressions, at differentpoints during the discourse. Let me give a few brief_{examples: In thefollowingexcerpt from}a_{short story}thenarrator uses both full

NPs _{(proper nouns)} and pronouns in reference to the protagonist (in this and the

following examples, target references are given in bold or initalia):

(2) MYERSwas _{travelingthrough}France in a_{first-class rail car on his way}

to visit his son in Strasbourg, who was astudent at the university there.

He hadn't seen the boy in eight years. There had been no phone calls

between them during this time, not even a postcard since Myers and the boy'smother had gone their separate ways - the boy staying with her. The

finalbreak-up was hastenedalong, Myers alwaysbelieved, by the boy's

malign interference in their personal affairs. (RC.TC: 47)1

As you can see in the example above, the main character (in bold) isintroduced by

a

full

nominal_{phrase (a proper noun),} followed by pronominal references, in turn

followed by tneresumption offull nominal reference. Also note that reference to a

secondary character, in the same excerpt (in italics), is maintained through the

continued use

of

definite full NPs.

Instead

of

_{using full} NPs_{(propernouns)} and_{pronouns,narrators may also} use an alternative description to refer to a character. Take the following example

froma_{children's book by}RoaldDahl _{(Preceding this excerpt is}a_passageinwhich

the parents of four year

old James Henry Trotter are eaten up by an angry rhinoceros):

(3) Now this, as you can

well

imagine, was arathernastyexperience for two such gentle parents. But in the long run it was far nastier

for

Jamesthan it

was for them. Theirtroubles were all over in ajiffy; they were dead and

gone in thirty-five seconds flat. Poor James, ontheother hand, was still

very much alive, and all at once, he foundhimselfaloneand_{frightened in}

avast_{unfriendly world. (RD.JGP: 7)}

Consider anotherexample froma Roald Dahl_{story, in}which little_George

is referred to by pronouns:

(4) Oh, how

he hated Grandma!

He

really hated [italics in original] that

horridold_witchywoman _{(RD.GMM: 12)}

1

Examples takenfrompopular andliterary fictionare labelledbyabbreviations. The sourcesarelisted in

Introduction 15

Inthefirstsentence,

it

seems as if wehearGeorge'svoice rather thanthenarrator's.

Nevertheless, the narrator is notquotingthe main character, but refers to him with

the third person pronounhe. Notice that in this sentence involvingthe character's 'voice', the use of the propername,George, would sound somewhat awkward.

So far we have seen that whenspeakers

/

writers referto charactersorother referents in discourse, they may doso using various types

of

referential expression types, such as _(in)definite NPs, proper nouns, demonstrative NPs, pronouns or zeroes.

Throughout this work we will find that in narrative discourse, reference to protagoniststypically displays what I will calla_propernoun / pronoun alternation.

Also in _{colloquial, non-literary} narratives, topical characters are often either

explicitlyreferred to by means of

full

descriptions(mostly propernames),orcoded

byless informative forms such as_{pronouns (or}zero _{forms). This alternation can be}

illustrated bythefollowing(attested) narrativetext2:

(5)

(a) De zomervakantie isinzicht. The summer holidays are coming

(b)

Maarje

heeft een idee Maartje has an idea

(c) en 0 wil nietgestoord worden.

and 0 doesn't want to be interrupted (d) Ze wileendraak ineenknutselen

She wants to fabricate a dragon

(e) en daar is zeurenlang zoet mee.

Which keeps her (subjecO busy for hours on end.

(f) Nu moetde_{draak nog geschilderd worden}

Now the dragon has to be painted (g) en dan is hij af.

and then it is finished. (h) Ziezo,dedraakisklaar.

There it is, the dragon is finished.

(i) De vakantieiseindelijkbegonnen The holidays have finally started

0) en Maarge gaat op stap methaarnieuwedraak. and Maartje goes out with her new dragon

(k) Ze wildemensenlatenschrikken She wants to give the people a scare

(1) en 0 hangt haar draak voor het raam van een huis.

And 0 puts up her dragon in front of a window

(m) De man diebinnen in het huis ligtte slapen,

2

This excerptisbased on one ofthetexts from theelicitedCorpus(cf chapter4), slightly adapted for

The man sleeping inside the house (n) begrijpt niet wat er aan de hand is.

Doesn't understand what is going on.

(o) Hij kijkt door het raam

He looks through the window

(p) en 0(hij)ziet:niemand! And 0 sees: nobody!

(q) Ondertussenis_{Maartje atlang uit het zicht.}

In the meantime, Maartje has long since disappeared.

(r) Enkele dagenlaterheeftze_{opnieuw een idee.}

A couple of days later, she has another idea.

(.-)

(s) Maartie is eenslim meisje

Maartje is a clever girl

(t) En ze weetal precies wat ze wil gaan doen.

And she already knows exactly what she wants to do.

Now let us take a look at how

the narrator refers to the protagonist _Maar(ie,

throughoutthecourse of her stor),3.Theintroduction ofthecharacteroccurs through

the explicit mention of her name.

After

the

introduction of

the protagonist, the

narrator uses pronouns or zeroes, but from time to time she again uses a proper

name, Maarge, to refer to the protagonist. In other words, at times the narrator repeats the proper noun to refer to the main character ofthe

story. Now, is this

repetition oftheproper nouna_{random matter, or is}

it

possible to detectsomesystem in this phenomenon?

In this story, repeated

explicit

reference occurs three times, namely in

clause (j) after 7 _{intervening clauses, then again in clause (q) after} 6 clauses, and

also in clause (s) in a different part of the same story. Looking at the conceptual

content ofthe story, wecanobserve thatthenarratorrepeats theprotagonist's name

atthe_{followingpoints:}

(i) In clause (i) the textconveysashift in timeand situation: It is the

beginning of

the holidays, which represents a

change in the

situation of

the protagonist. This narrative

shift in time and

circumstancesis _{immediately followed, in the next clause (j), by a} repeatedproper noun to refer tothe_protagonist.

(ii)

The_{beginning of}the_{story is}allabout the_{main character, Maartje.}

In clause (m), a

new character is introduced in the story, the

neighbour. The nextfewlinesareconcerned with the situation and

experiences of this neighbour, leaving out

reference to the

protagonist

altogether: Four

lines _{later, in} clause (q) the story returns to the protagonist; the focus ofthe storyhasshifted from

3 1 willusefemininegender toindicate_{the language producer, i.e. the speakeror writer, and}masculine gender for the hearerorreader.

4 Note that in line 16'nobody' isanindirectreference totheprotagonist:Although theneighbour does

Introduction 17

the protagonist to another character, and then shifts back to the

protagonist; and this character shift is

accompanied by the

resumption oftheproper name.

(Hi) In clause (s) the narrator _{gives us her} own interpretation rather

than a report of the main character's ongoing activities and the

events she is involved in. That is, this so-callednarrator comment

represents a description of a permanent and inherent property of

the protagonist, which is accompanied by a repeated use of the

protagonist's name.

What may strike us when observing this pattern isthat, strictly speaking, it does not

seem at allnecessary torepeat explicitreference totheprotagonist.Throughout the story,

it

shouldbe clear that the narrative revolves aroundthe central character. In addition,ambiguity is ruled out (there is no other female character, so thepronoun she cannot but refer to the protagonist). So why repeat the proper name at all?

Judging from the idea thatonlyambiguityneeds to beavoided, repeatingtheproper

noun might seem redundant. In the texts shown above, however, the narrators do

alternate between using names and pronouns (or zero anaphora) for the main

characters in theirstories. Asweshall seein later_{chapters, animportant role can be} ascribedto referent_{salience within the embedding context.}

The aim of

this study is to explain the patterns

of

alternating full and

attenuated nominals, in consecutive reference to narrative

_{characters, in a}

cognitively plausible way. The present study focuses on referential

choice, i.e. it

takes a production rather than comprehension or processing

perspective. I will

investigate the process of the production

of

referential expressions, rather than the (more widely investigated) process

of

anaphora resolution. I

will restrict my

research mostly toone specific area: consecutive_{r ference}to topical characters in Dutch written narrative discourse.

The literature on discourse reference reveals numerous factors that can be

associated with the choice

of

referential form.

However, most of

the existing

research consists

of

qualitative case _{studies, and} involves _carefully edited texts.

Most

of

thesestudies, that is, are notbasedon systematic statistical analysis of data collected under_{maximallycontrolled experimental conditions. Further, most studies}

focus on one or two of the many factors that mightbe assumed to be relevant to

referentialchoice. Not all of_{them, lastly,}involve_{independently established theories}

of

the_{representation}ofdiscourse.

This study

of

coursebuildson _{importanthypotheses andinsights}offered in

the previousliteratureon discourse reference, and aims to complement the existing

literature in a _{number of ways: by offering} statistical _analyses

of

_{experimentally}

elicited production data; by considering several factors simultaneously; and by

attempting to situate thedata

within

atheoretical framework

for

nominal categories

and narrative representation. In doing so, this study aims to assess the relative

influence

of

several _{factors affecting referential} choice, and to shed

_{light on the}

The remainder of this introductory chapter consists offour sections: Section 1.2

brieflypresents thetheoretical background.

In

section 1.3 I

will

describe the set-up

and approach ofthestudy; section 1.4 summarizes the mainresearch questions; in section _{1.5,lastly, I}

will

_presentanoverview ofthe contents

of

_chapters2_{through 7.}

1.2 Areference_{point approach to discourse reference}

Various studies have described the form and meaning of the different

types of

referential expression, as well as the mechanisms and conditions

of

their use and interpretation. The central aim

of

thesereference theories is toaccount for the form and interpretation

of

_{(anaphoric) discourse referents. That is, they attempt}toexplain (i) the way aspeakerintroduces anew referententity intothediscourse and the way

she subsequently maintains reference to it in the discourse, using varioustypes of

referential expression; and (ii) the way a hearer resolves what discourse entity the

speaker

refers to, and the way

he integrates a referential expression into the

discoursemodel.

In most theories

of

_{discourse reference,} referential form is related to the information status _{or cognitive smtus}

of

referents _{(Chafe 1976, 1987, 1994;} Giv6n

1979,1983; Prince 1981;

Ariel

1988,1990,2001; Tomlin 1987;Tomlin & Pu 1991;

Kibrik

1999;

Gundel et al. 1993; Van Hoek 1992, 1995, 1997). That is, in

accounting

for

online referential choice and _{anaphora resolution,}

there is an

important role for cognitive processing factors such as concept activation, or, the

(assumed) accessibility or salience

of

mental representations. The guiding assumptions forthe_{present study}arebased_{primarily on} a_{cognitive semantic view}

of nominal categories in terms

of

salience _{(Van Hoek 1997). Proper nouns and}

pronouns, on this _{view, reflect} different degrees

of

referent salience

within the

immediate context, as represented in the

minds of

the discourse participants: A

pronoun represents a high degree ofreferent salience within the embedding context, and a proper noun represents a relatively low degree of referent salience within the

context.

The theoreticalapproach taken in this studyis largelybased ona

discourse-level application of Van Hoek's (1997) reference point model of anaphora. Van

Hoek's _model, which _comprises a _{conceptual-semantic account}

of

sentential

anaphora_constraints,isexpanded so astoaccount

for

referential choices atthelevel

of

discourse. Within the _{proposed discourse-level model, nominal entities} serve as

conceptual reference points (,cf. also Langacker 1990), against which the

surrounding context is to be interpreted. The stretch

of

context within which a referent is the most salient entity and functions as conceptual reference point is

termedadominion.

Intheextension of this model to the level

of

discourse, I presentacognitive

semantic characterization

of

_{proper noun}

/

_{pronounpatterns in discourse. I propose}

Introduction 19

context (what Van Hoek (1997) terms reference point

/

dominion organization)

keeps track ofthe evolving relation between topic referents andlocalcontext. This organization in turn determines the alternation of

full

(proper noun) andattenuated

(pronominaD reference.

Therelation between reference points, dominionsandreferential choice can be describedas_{follows: As long as}theintendedreferentfunctionsasreference_point

within the embedding context, a speaker or writer continues to pronominalize the

referent; if forsome reason thereferent is no longer (tobe presented as) thecentral

element,or, referencepoint inthe_{embedding context, the speaker}orwriter_repeats explicitreference,

for

exampleby usinga_{proper noun.}

It is hypothesized that the extent of a referential _{dominion, that is, the}

extent of_{high referent}saliencewithinacertain stretch

of

_{discourse context,depends}

on a number

of

factors:the

topicality of

thereferent

within

theentire discourse; the

referent's salience

within

the clause _{(its syntactic} function and its linear_position);

the linear textual distance to the previous mention ofthe referent(in terms of the

number

of

_{intervening words and}/or_{clauses); the presence}

of

intervening referents;

the embedding narrative structure; and characterperspective. One ofthe relevant factors, narrative structure,isillustrated below:

(6) As George sat there pondering this interesting problem, his eye fell

uponthebottle

of

Grandma'sbrownmedicine standing on thesideboard.

Rotten

stuff it

seemed to be. Four times a day a large spoonful of it was

shovelled into hermouth andit didn't do herthe_{slightest bit of good. She}

was always justashorridafter she'd had it as she'dbeenbefore. Thewhole

point

of

medicine, surely, was to make apersonbetter. If

it

didn't do that,

then itwas_quiteuseless.

So-ho!_{Thought George}suddenly.Ah-ha! Ho-hum!Iknowexactly

what 1'11 do. I shall make her a new medicine, one that is so strong and so fierce andso fantastic it willeither cure hercompletely or blow off the top

of her head. I'll make her a_{magic medicine,}a medicine no doctor in the

world has evermadebefore.

George looked atthekitchenclock. It said five pastten.There was nearly an hourleftbefore Grandma's next dose was dueat eleven.

'Here we go, then!' cried George,jumping up from the table. 'A

magic medicine

it

shall be!'

(RD.GMM: 14)

Episodetransitions (representedherethrough paragraphs)involveaconceptualshift

inthenarrative representation, or, situation model (cf. Zwaan

&

Radvansky 1998); a

change in (one or more) narrative characteristics such as location, time, cause,

character

and/or

motivation (ibid.)may close off areferentialdominionandtrigger

the repeated use ofa proper noun. The narrator can alsoexploitthe referencepoint

principles sketched above, for communicative _purposes: continued

pronominalization enhances conceptual continuity, whereas _{repetition of}a _proper

The proposed model is tailored specificallyto_{topic maintenance,}

for

which

propernouns andpronouns, itisargued, arethetypical categories. It does not apply to referents that are 'new' inadiscourse(segment), orto casesinwhichthereferring

expression _{itself is used to} add information about the _{referent, as} in example (3)

above.

The corpus analysis presented in chapters 5 and 6 addresses the extent to

which therelevant factors distinguished on thebasis ofthis model indeed underlie

theactualreferential choices made

by

narratorsin online narrative production.

13 Approach and set-up of the study

The present study is conducted within the overall framework

of

Cognitive

Linguistics

(Lakoff

1987, Langacker 1987, 1991, Talmy 2000, Fauconnier 1994,

Barlow

&

Kemmer _2000). Research conducted within this framework, which

developed in the past two _decades, focuses on the relations between language use,

languagestructure,andgeneralcognition.

Given its theoretical orientation, Cognitive Linguistics can be considered closely related to the field

of

psycholinguistics. Because of the emphasis ona usage-based language system, and on the important role ascribed to general (non-linguistic) cognition, cognitive linguistics naturally lends itself _{to investigations} involving linguistic processing, and to empirical validation through (quantitative) psycholinguistic methods5. Pioneers in the field

of

cognitive linguistics, such as

Lakoff (1987)

and _{Langacker (1987, 1991)} have _largely relied on established

linguistic analytical methods. Recent years have witnessed more research in

theoretical linguistics employing psycholinguistic methods suchasexperimentation

and corpus analysis (Geeraerts 1999, Verhagen 2005, Goldberg 2006 inter alia).

Both analytical and psycholinguistic (quantitative) approaches seem to have their

own advantages: Fauconnier _{(1994) remarks that} a qualitative investigation of extraordinary cases might bringto light the processes that are normaUy at work in

language. Geeraerts (1999) argues that adopting a _usage-basedframework such as Cognitive Linguistics implies that its methodology needs to include quantitative

research methods such as those used in corpus research and psycholinguistic

experiments. In my view, the

inclusion of both

an _{analytical and} a _quantitative

approach

might be

an advantage. As

Talmy (2005) puts it, "each of the

methodologies nowbeing applied to cognitive linguisticshasunique capacities that

make _{it necessary for our overall understanding}

of

conceptual structuring in

language, as well

as _having

limitations that make

the _{other methodologies}

additionallynecessary for this understanding" (Talmy 2005: 11).

This study

is situated at the crossroads

of

cognitive linguistics and

psycholinguistics. I

will

employ both qualitative and quantitative methods in the

Indeed one oftheobjectionsagainst mainstream generative grammar has been that, although it aims to accountfor language as abiologicaland _{psychological phenomenon, it does not}lenditself_{easily to}

Introduction 21

following way: Qualitative analyses are

employed for

the

development of

hypotheses concerning usage

of

proper nouns and _{pronouns. Using mostly literary}

examples, I

will

describethe_{various factors,}listed in 1.2above, that canbe assumed

to affect referentialchoice. Thesefactors will be put to the test in anempiricalstudy

of

Dutch narrative production. Due to the fact that several factors canbeassumed to

(simultaneously) influence referential choice, a _{quantitative analysis is especially}

warranted, in order toassesstherelativeimportance of each

of

thesefactors, and to

assess whether they cancel each other out. Therefore, two quantitative methods, namely frequency analysis and regression analysis, are used in the analysis of an

elicited corpus: I present a_{frequencyanalysis of}the distribution

of

referential form relative to the factors at issue

(chapter 5); I

also present a regression analysis

assessing theweight oftheindividualfactors (chapter 6).

In order to obtain relevant production data forthe quantitative (frequency

and regression)

analysis, I elicited

a corpus

of

written Dutch narrative texts.

Participants were askedto produceawritten narrative on thebasis ofaseries of 25 pictures. The pictures told a children's story about one protagonist

involved in

several events. Some of the factors assumed to affect referential form - episode

boundaries, viewpoint boundaries and _perceptual attention

shifts - were

implemented in the picture series. In this way I obtained a _corpus ofstructurally

similar,comparablewrittennarratives.

Inthe corpus analysis, I investigate the way the relevant factors influence referential choice during the onlineproduction

of

written narrative texts. On the

basis of the _{results, it} is assessed whether the findings are compatible with the

proposedsalience-basedcharacterization ofthecategoriesproper nounandpronoun.

I will also

briefly address the production rules or principles that might guide the

online selection

of

referential form. Withthisstudy, then, I hope tocontribute both

to a psycholinguistic model oflanguage production, and to a theoretical model of

nominalsemanticsand_pragmatics.

1.4_{Research Questions}

Theresearchquestions that willbecentral to the present study areasfollows:

1. How can

we account for the patterns

of

alternating proper nouns and

pronouns in narratives in

terms of

a conceptual-semantic salience-based

characterization

of

_{nominal categories? (Chapter 2).}

2. Given that

this salience-based characterization relates to the _embedding

context, which conceptual and discourse-structural characteristics of

narrative discourse shouldbe_{distinguished? (Chapter 2)}

3. During narrative discourse production, what are the relevant factors for the

distribution

of

proper nounsversuspronouns, referring to topical referents?

(Chapter 5). More

specifically, what is

the _(relative)

influence of the

4. Based on the _{observed factors, is}

it

possible to characterize the linguistic

knowledge, rules, and /or communicative strategies that govern the

real-time production

of

proper nounsandpronouns? (Chapter 7).

1.5Contents overview

In this chapter I haveprovided an outline ofthe issues to beaddressed inthis study. Thissectionbrieflydescribes thecontents

of

chapters2through 7.

In chapter 2 I presentthetheoretical background tothestudy. Itishypothesized that referent salience and narrative context can account for the _coding

of

consecutive topic reference in narrative discourse. The chapter consists ofthe

following: (i) it

presents discourse referents as mental _{entities; (ii) it gives} a _{description of the}

nominalcategoriesproper noun andpronounin terms

of

salience; (iii)

it

presents an

overview ofVanHoek's _{(sentential) referencepoint}model

of

_{anaphora (1997); (iv)}

it presents an extension of this model to the level

of

discourse, distinguishing a number

of

_{grammatical, discourse} andnarrative structural factors assumedto affect

referential anaphoric patterns in narratives; and (v) it provides a _{description and}

illustration

of

these _{factors, using examples} from _English fictional narratives. The

model presented in this chapter forms the basis ofthe hypotheses for referential

choiceinnarratives, tobeinvestigated inthecorpus study.

Chapter3 presentstheoperationalization ofthefactorsassumedtoaffectreferential

choice in Dutch written narratives. The relevant factors are all

based on a

characterization ofthe nominal categories proper noun and pronoun in

terms of

referent saliencewithinthecontext, asproposed in chapter 2. Some

of

thesefactors

are a_{rather straightforwardapplication of}the discourse level reference_pointmodel of anaphora, someare _{specific to discourse (rather} than _sentential) contexts, some

are based_{on previous}research.

Chapter 4 presents themethodological validation ofthe research.

It

describes how the production data havebeencollected. I

will

argue thatthemethod used tocollect

the corpus-elicitationthroughvisualstimuli (comics) - is avalid way

of

obtaining

narrative production data. I

will

demonstrate that, inthegenre

of

comics, discourse-structural characteristics suchas _{episodic structure can} be_conveyed throughvisual

means. I

will

describethe implementation ofsuch factors inthevisual stimuli, and

the productiontask

ofwriting

narratives on thebasis

of

thesevisualstimuli.

Chapter 5 addresses thequestion

of

which factorsarerelevanttoreferential choice (i.e. the first part

of

research question3 above). To this end, I present a frequency

analysis of the distribution

of

_{referential expressions in the collected corpus,}

Introduction 23 First, I present a general characterization ofthe corpus, establishing the linguistic

topic status oftheprotagonist. The main part ofthe chapter isconcerned

with

testing

a number

of

_hypotheses presented in chapter 3.

It

presents the distribution of

referential form relative to the clause-internal _{factors syntactic} function and linear

position;

it

analyses the discourse-structural factors episode _boundaries, viewpoint

shifts, andpage breaks (reflecting _{perceptual attention),} implemented in the visual

stimuli; it

also_{presents a more fine-grained analysis}

of

discourse-structural factors

in terms ofthesituation modelparameters_{character, location and time; the chapter} also addresses the hypothesis that repeated proper nouns after episode boundaries may serve the function

of

signalling the discourse structure (apart from the basic

identifying function); lastly, the chapter includes an analysis

of

referential form

relative to_degreeofcharacter_perspective.

Chapter 6 addresses the _{question of}the_{relative importance} ofvarious _significant factors _{in referential choice (i.e.} the second part

of

researchquestion3 _{above). It is}

concerned

with

modeUingtheproper noun

/

pronoun alternation.Whereasin chapter

5 I report

the observed frequencies

of

proper nouns and pronouns in different

discourse situations, in

chapter 6 I

present estimations of the

individual and

cornbined contribution

of

these factors tothe_{probability that a narrator will use a} repeated_{proper noun (rather than}apronoun), throughalogistic regression analysis.

In this

way, several factors that usually co-occur in discourse production can be

disentangled. Using a

selected part of

the collected corpus, I

will

report the

individual and relative

effect of

the factors referential distance (in words and

clauses), episode boundaries, viewpoint shifts, intervening referents, and _syntactic

function.

Chapter 7 presents the conclusions ofthe study. I

will

propose that the salience

characteristics ofthereferential_{categoriesproper}noun_{andpronoun, combined with}

the conceptual structure ofthe narrative contexts in _{which they occur,} can explain the observed proper noun /pronoun patterns in consecutive reference to narrative

characters. _{The chapter} also offers an

outline of

a _process

model of

the choice between _{proper noun} and _{pronoun, involving two} basic mechanisms, based on

A

discourse level

exploration of

the

reference

point

model of

anaphora

2.1 Introduction

This chapter forms the theoretical background to the empirical study presented in

subsequentchapters.Itpresents salience as thecentralnotion

for

topic maintenance,

and describesthecharacteristics inthenarrative contextwhichmightaffect referent

salience.

The set-up ofthechapter is asfollows: Section2.2 presents theconceptual conditionsfor linguisticreferencetodiscourseentities

(following

Jackendoff 2002). Section 2.3 presents the process

conditions for particular Opes of reference: it

presents a conceptual-semantic description ofthe nominal categories proper noun

and pronoun,as_{adopted in Van Hoek (1997). Section 2.3also presents the}reference

pointmodel

of

_{sentential anaphora constraints, introducing} the factors linear order, conceptualconnectivityand

point of

view,which affectreferent saliencewithin the

clause andwhich will turn out to playanimportant roleindiscourselevel anaphora

aswell. Section 2.4presents thebasic arguments

for

treatingsentenceanddiscourse level anaphora in the same way, and for adopting this particular theory for the

development

of

hypothesesconcerning referential patterns in narrative. Italsogives

a description ofthe representation

of

reference points and dominions in narrative discourse. In 2.5,thediscourselevelfactorsforreferential choiceare described and illustrated with _examples from English fictional narrative. Section 2.6, lastly,

presents thesummary ofthe chapter.

2.2Discoursereferentsasmental entities

This section presents theconceptualconditions for our ability torefer to things and persons in real orfictionaldomains. Theattachment ofaso-called indexicalfeature

to a perceived or conceived entity, which singles outan _{entity as} an individual, is

what allowsfor(consecutive)linguisticreference. Withinthecontext of_{the present}

study, the attachment of an indexical feature to perceived or conceived entities allows narrators to produce chains

of

linguisticreference to a single character in a

narrative. In the elicitation task used here _{(cf. chapter 4), narrators} track the

16 Chapter 2

present the protagonist as a single individual throughoutthestory, even when it is

absent_{in certain pictures,or depicted from}adifferentvisualangle.

Bothin discourse and in everyday _{life,people attribute identities}topeople, animalsandthings, invery differentsituations: Takeforexample the case

of

seeing,

hearing, strokingandtalking about one's favourite cat. This involvesvery different

sensory and conceptual processes. _Moreover, even within a single modality, the

same cat can be seen from _{very differentangles,yielding different} and _incomplete images.Yet people somehow manage to identify the cat as one and thesame

'thing',

throughout the course of time. In this section I use

_{Jackendoffs (2002) view of}

linguisticreferencetodemonstratehowconceptsand percepts give risetochains of

reference_{in discourse, through}theattachment

of

indexical features toaperceived or conceived object.

As a starting point, I adopt the now widely accepted view that linguistic

referenceprimarily involves the relation between linguistic expressionsand mental

concepts, rather thantherelation between language andreality _{(the outside world)1}

(Johnson-Laird 1983, Langacker 1987, _{Jackendoff 2002). As Jackendoff (2002)}

points out, people often refer to 'objects' that cannot easily be defined as realistic

objects in 'the world'. He _{illustrates this claim by numerous examples:} fictional

characters suchas _{Sherlock Holmes', geographical objects such} as _{Wyoming, social}

entities such asthevalueOfmy watch; auditorilyperceived objects suchasMahler's

Second Symphony, andvirtual objects such as thesquare formed by four dots (cf.

figure 1 below). (An extensivereview

of

these andother examples canbe found in

Jackendoff 2002: 300-3).

Figure 1 (Jackendoff 2002: 301 )

These examples illustrate that linguistic expressions refer to conceptualstructures

rather thantoobjects in the_world, independent of the mind.

Inwhatfollows 1 will use Jackendoffs _{(2002) example}

of

visual perception to illustrate how chains

of

perception andreference comeabout.Jackendoffargues that percepts and concepts are

linked to

an 'index' feature,

which in

turn enables

consecutive verbal reference to it.

Jackendoffs (2002: 306) example runs as

follows:

(1) Hey, look atthat!

Ipointingl

When a _{speaker utters} a sentence such as

(1),the

understanding

of

deictic 'that',

which contains little descriptive _content,

involves more than just

the linguistic

processing of_{the sentence;the hearer must make use of}thevisualsystemin order to

1

identifythereferent. It is not theeyes,however, thatidentifywhatever the speaker is pointing at: The immediateretinal imageis sensitive onlytostimuli suchas colour,

contrast,

intensity etc; it does

not

itself

_{distinguish specific objects or object}

locations. _{As Jackendoff puts it:}

"inboard from here it's

_{all computation" (2002:}

307): It is

the brain that transforms the retinal

image to

a

"percept", a

"cognitive/neural structure that distinguishes

individuals in

the perceived environment and that permits one to attend to oneoranother of them. One can stop attending to aperceived individual andthen_{return to it; one} can track aperceived

individual as

it

moves through the perceived environment and as

it

changes

properties such as orientation, color and shape" _{(2002:307). What are} the crucial

features of suchapercept, andwhatmakes(repeated) linguisticreference to such a percept possible?

Jackendoff elaborates on the exampleHey, look at that! by exploring what

is involved when that refers to adisgusting bug that iscrawlingacrossthefloor. He

explains thata percept that thehearer mustidentify in orderto connectthe deictic expression to an entity perceived "out there", contains at least the

following

features:First, the percept containsanumber

of

descriptivefeatures. The features of

a_{visual percept such as the} oneillustratedhereconsist ofsize,color, shape, as well as location and _{motion. The descriptive features are not necessarily}

visual. In a

variant of this example, Did you hear that?, the featuresare_{auditory. Percepts come}

indifferentmodalities, such as_{seeing,hearing,smelling}and_feeling.

Another importantaspect ofa_{percept is that it}is_{perceived as} a _(moving)

figure

against a _{surrounding background. The fact that} a_{perceived entity in some}

way stands out from its_{perceived surroundings forms} the initial basis

for

_building

an indexical feature of the percept,which 'marks' the percept (orconceptwhen it is

established through language) asan individual entity: "[the indexical feature] gives

the [...]minda 'something'towhichdescriptive features canbe_{bound" (Jackendoff}

2002: 311). This feature, once established, is no longer dependent on _perceptual

input, but allows ustofurther

'track'

theentity throughout time; even when it is no

longer perceived itisassumedto _{continue to exist, and can}beperceived again, and

recognized as the same _{entity, in any of} the _{existing modalities. The} indexical

feature, then, is modality-neutral and is used

for

example in tracking moving

percepts, and inidentifying perceptsorconcepts thatdisappear andre-appear from the focus

of

(visual,verbal,auditoryetc)attention:

Jackendoff argues that

"[t]he

indexical feature ofa percept is the crucial

feature _{for linguistic} reference" (Jackendoff 2002:314). These indexical features,

whether established perceptually or linguistically, are also necessary for chains

of

linguistic cor€ference.

A

proper name, which denotes an

individual, "has an

indexical in

its associated _concept"

(Jackendoff 2002: 318).

An attenuated expression such asa_{pronoun does not contain such}anindexical feature; a_pronoun

2 Anindexical feature can also besplit ormerged:forexample,asingle objectmay break into two or

more pieces, ortwo lumps of clay canbemoldedtogether(evoking evolutivereferents, cf. Maes 2001).

Othercharacteristicsofpercepts andconcepts, such as itsvaluation,itsclassificationasself-produced vs notself-produced, meaningful vs not meaningful and familiar vs.novel,are described inJackendoff

28 Chapter 2

such as she _{merely designates} a _{female animate entity. Nevertheless, an indexical}

feature should somehow be present in order to produce the

pronoun in any

meaningful way. The production and interpretation

of

pronouns is therefore

dependent on context for the attachment of an indexical feature. As we shall see

below,a _prerequisitefor_{using such} an _{attenuated expression,}which in

itself

lacks

anindexical_{feature, is that it}behighlysalient

within

thecurrent context.

2.3Thereference

_point

model

of

_anaphora

This sectionpresentsan overview ofVan _{Hoek's (1995,1997) sentential r€terence} point model of anaphora.

Van

Hoek's characterization of nominal semantics will be

addressed in2.3.1 below; theconstraints on

full

nominalandpronominal sentential anaphora willbe addressedin section 2.3.2.

2.3.1 Nominal Semantics

Whereas the previous section addressed the conceptual prerequisites

for

linguistic

reference, this section discussesthe_{process conditions for choosing a particular type}

of

referential _{expression. To this end,} this section _presents Van _{Hoek's (1997)} semantic characterization of the nominal category, which largely draws on the notion_{accessibilio'(Ariel 1988),}equivalent to VanHoek's notion

salienc/.

During the _production and _{comprehension}

of

discourse, attention flows

from one focus to the next and concepts

continually move into and out of the

immediate focus

of

consciousness _{(Chafe 1987,} 1994; Langacker 2001). Chafe (1994) argues that only acertain amount

of

information can be_{'mentally active' or}

focused on at acertain _{time. Therefore, concepts}havedifferent activation states in people's minds at differentpoints in thediscourse. Linguisticcategories respond to

thesedistinctions: referential expression types such as(in)definitenominals, proper nounsandpronouns codeinformation pertaining tothe currentmentalaccessibility of a_{discourse entity,}as_{represented in}theminds ofthe_{discourse participants (Chafe}

1987, Ariel 1990 inter alia). The nominalcategoriesdefinite full nominal (including

proper noun) and pronoun code different degrees of referent salience or

accessibility: Full nominal expressions such as _{proper nouns} are so-called low accessibility_{markers, i.e. they indicate that}theintended referent has alow_{degree of} accessibility. Pronouns, on the other hand, are high accessibility markers, in that

they indicate thatthereferentiscurrently highlyaccessible.

On this view,the choice ofa certainreferential expression largely depends on the _(assumed) salience ofa referent within the current context of use.

A

recently

' Although Van Hoek (1997) adopts Ariel's (1988) notionofaccessibdityin characterizing nominal categories, in her own analyses she mostly uses the equivalent term salience (and sometimes,

prominence). Iwill therefore also use the term sahence. The readershould keep in mind however, that

mentionedreferent

for

exampleisassumed to be intheforefront oftheinterlocutor's

consciousness, and may thereforebe_{accorded a high degree}

of

salience. _Therefore,

it suffices to use a pronoun to refer to that referent. A referent may also be in the

forefront

of

awareness of the discourse participants due to other, non-linguistic

circumstances, witness the following discourse-initial referencetoSaddam Hussein duringapressconference4:

(2) Ladiesand_{Gentlemen: We ['ve] got 'em}

At the press conference announcing his capture, the referent Saddam Hussein was

on everybody's mind, since rumours ofhis capture were alreadycirculating and it

was considered very important news. The pronoun reflects the referent's high

saliencewithinthecontext ofthe pressconference.

Van Hoek_{(1997) distinguishes anotheraspect}

of

nominal semantics - one

that shecharacterizesas analogous tothenotion

of

salience:

full

nominals (such as proper nouns) and _pronouns differ _{with respect to} the degree

of

_{subjectivity or}

objectivi)

they impose on thereferent(cf. Langacker 1990). Van Hoek's particular

distinction between subjective and objective construal refers to what Langacker

(1990) calls the _{stage model, i.e.} amodel of the discourse situation in which both

discourseparticipantsand conceptualised entities

differ in

the degree towhich they

are themselves portrayed as _{'conceptualizer' (in Langacker's terms),}

viewer or

cognizer ofthedescribedsituation.

For currentpurposes, the subjectivity / objectivity distinction in nominals

can be described as follows: _{In perspectivized contexts,} a _{(subjective) pronoun}

portraysits referentas_{conceptualizer of}the_predication

of

_{which it is part} whereas

an (objective) proper noun portrays its referent as the object

of

conceptualisation,

from an 'outside' perspective, i.e. that

of

eitherthenarrator oranother (secondary)

character.

Van Hoek

also describes the subjectivity distinctions as follows:

"Reference via name implies greater distance between the conceived referent and

the_{[discourse] participants, and}acorrespondingly more objective conception of the referent. A _{pronoun portrays} the referent as _{conceptually closer to} the discourse participants, andcorrespondingly as more subjectivelyconstrued" (Van Hoek 1997:

219).

As we shall seein_{section 2.5.7 and in chapter 5, I}

will

relate thisnotion to

thecharacterization givenin Sanders(1994),which offersreliablelinguistic criteria for distinguishing ways inwhichthe consciousness

of

discourse participants as well

asembeddedcharacters canberepresented in the text

4 Cf. Ariel (1988, 1998)forfurtherdiscussion on the relevanceofreferentaccessibility/saliencerather than thereferent's 'geographical context' in explaining referentialpatterns (geographicalcontext referring

30 Chapter 2

2.3.2 Sentential anaphora constraints

Within Van Hoek's reference point model

of

anaphora, the

felicitous use of a

coreferential

full

nominalor_{pronoun depends on}the salience ofits referentwithin

the _{immediate context,}

which is in

turn determined by three factors: conceptual connectivity, linear order, and

point of view.

In order to plausibly relate (pro)nominal anaphora to the relevant characterization

of context, Van Hoek

develops a model of semantic relations between nominals, in terms

of

reference

points and dominions. Reference points function as local topics within a semantic

domain, or dominion.

A

dominion is defined as amental_{space (Fauconnier 1994),}

consisting of the (conceptual, non-linguistic) context within which a _particular

referent is the_{most salient element. Van Hoek puts it}asfollows:

Reference points are elements which are prominent

within the

discourse and so serve to set up the contexts

within

which the

conceptualizer makes mental contact with other entities. The

dominion of

a reference point consists of the elements that are

conceptually locatedrelative to the referencepoint,whose construal is shaped by their association with the reference point (Van Hoek

1995: 313).

A pronoun can only be used

if

there is a salient antecedent that can function as

referencepoint forthe interpretation

of

thatpronoun. A

full

nominal can be used if

itsimmediatecontextfalls outside thedominion ofa_{corresponding referencepoint.}

Using a full nominal that necessarily fallswithinthe _{dominion of a corresponding}

reference_pointsendsthe_{wrongsignalconcerning the referent'sretrievability within} thecontext, preventinganintended coreference reading.

This is illustrated in (3) below: The full

nominal Steve falls within the

dominion of_{the pronoun} he, which, as _{clausal subject, represents the most salient}

entity and the reference

point for the rest of

the clause (i.e., with the rest of the

clause in itsdominion). The full nominal Steve can therefore notbe interpreted as coreferential to the subject pronoun.

(3) # He put the money inSteve's_pocket

Drawing onanumber

of

theories

of

discourse reference(Giv6n 1983,

Ariel

1990 inter alia), Van Hoek describes the

initial

selection ofa reference _{point as}

follows: "X islikely tobe taken asareferencepoint

relative to Y if X

is_{[salient] in}

the contextwhichincludes Y. Thisreflects thebasic nature ofa_{reference point as}

something which is selected on the basis

of

salience and used as a starting point

from which to

make mental contact with _other, less salient entities" (Van Hoek

1997: 58).

The representation ofa salient nominal

within

_{its embedding (sentential)}

context, demarcatingtheextent ofthe domain inwhichthenominal remains_highly

organization. The sentential organization

of

reference pointsanddominionsdepends on the salience ofa nominal _(its reference point _{status) and (the} strength of) its

conceptual-semantic connections with coreferential

nominals. Van Hoek

distinguishes three factors that shape this organization, once an entity has been

selected as reference point:

_(i)

conceptual connectivity;

_(ii)

linear order; and (iii)

point of

view. These factors determine the extent ofa referencepoint's dominion,

within

which _{corresponding referents} are _necessarily

_{pronominalized. I will now}

describethesefactors in turn.

Conceptual Connectivity

Conceptual connectivity pertains to the strength

of

relations between nominal elements, be

it

within a _singleclause, asentence oran entire discourse. Van Hoek defines conceptual connectivity as"theextenttowhichtwo elementsare conceived

as participating together in a larger conceptual unit." (Van Hoek 1997: 61). Such

units correlateforinstancewithverb-argument structures,sentences, orparagraphs.

The degree

of

conceptualconnectivity partlydeterminesthe_{possibility for}areferent

to 'escape' the dominion of a coreferential nominal, and to be _{coded by a full}

nominal.

Conceptual connections within the clause are reflected in the grammatical relations between verb, complements,and modifiers. To describe the configuration

of the verb and its complements, Van Hoek uses the notion

of

complement chain.

The complement chain draws on the grammatical relations hierarchy: subject >

direct object> indirect _object> _{oblique (Keenan}

&

Comrie 1977 inter alia). This

notation reflects the hierarchy

of

prominence within the central clause: a clausal subject is more prominent thanadirectobject,which in turn ismore prominent than

anindirectobject,which in turn ismore prominent thananoblique complement. But

note that Cognitive Grammar views such syntactic relations as surface

manifestations

of

_{underlyingconceptual-semantic structure (cf. van Hoek 1997: 10,}

66). Apart

from these verb complements, there may be (coreferential) nominals

within

various types

of

sentential modifiers. These represent the least prominent entities

with

respecttoother entities inthecentralclause.

Constraints on coreference

within

the clause _largely

follow from the

prominence asymmetries reflectedinthese _patterns; the loweranominal's_position

on the complement

chain, the lower

its conceptual connectivity to nominals elsewhere intheclause, andthe_higherthe_{possibilities}

for

construingthereferent as

outside the

dominion of

a corresponding referent

within

that clause, and

consequently,

for

using a

full

nominal.

To give

an example, the subject is the most prominent element within the

complement chain, and therefore functions as the reference

point for

the central

processdescribed bythe clause, withallotherentities in theclause in its dominion. This explainstheunacceptability

of

sentence_{(5) under}acoreferential reading:

(4) Johnlikeshamother

32 Chapter 2

Van Hoek explains that,thesubjectbeing the most saliententity inthe sentence, he

in (5) isthe mainreferencepoint within the complement chain. Any corresponding

nominal within that chain, such as the possessive

nominal John's within the modifier, must be highly salient as well, because it isconceptualizedrelativeto the subjectreferencepoint. Consequently, the use ofa_{proper noun,} which signals low

salience, preventsa_{coreferential reading. Van Hoek puts it}asfollows: "Because the subject isareference_{point with the rest of}the clause in its dominion,a_pronominal

subject cannotcorrespond with a

full

nominal elsewhere in the_{clause" (Van Hoek}

1997: 66).

Van Hoek _argues that _{clausal conceptual connectivity is not just a}

notational variant

of

_{syntactic (c-command) relations. The} basic _{patterns arising}

fromthecomplement chain - such asthetendency fortheclausal subject tofunction

as reference point for other entities in the clause (which are therefore necessarily

pronominalized if theyare_{coreferential to it), and}thetendency

for

complements5 of

themain clause verbtofunctionas referencepoint

for

correspondingentities in the

subclause - can be overridden _{by conceptual-semantic}

factors. This can be

illustrated bythe_{followingexamples:}

(6) * Mary hit him

just

before John got up

(7) Mary hithim before John hadachance to get up

(Brugmanand

Lakoff

1987,cited in Van Hoek 1997: 92)

Thefirstexample isungrammatical underacoreferential reading, because any main

clause verb _{complement normally}functions as reference

_{point for}

a _{corresponding}

nominal in thesubclause, andthe latter should thereforebe coded byapronoun. In

the second sentence theconceptual break improves coreferencepossibilities. That is,

the _{irrealis subclause describes a situation which does not in reality} occur(John gettingup), and thereby presents a conceptual break with respect to the main clause,

which describes a situation which does occur in _{reality (Mary hitting John). This}

allows the referent John to

fall

outside the

dominion of

the coreferential object nominal.

Van _{Hoek provides many examples} which indicate that semantic characteristics suchasthose in (7) overridethe clause-level generalizations usually captured in terms

of

c-command. Examples like these demonstrate the

fundamentally semantic

nature of

the anaphora constraints, which allows for the possibilitythatsententialanddiscourse anaphorabeaccounted for in the same way.

Moreover, conceptual connectivitybetween nominal elements represents a continuum _{typically ranging from the strong connectivity between complements of}

the verb,

to weaker connectivity found with clausal modifiers, to weakest connectivity, reflected in discourseunitboundaries. _{This weakest type}

of

_conceptual

connectivity is relevant to reference point

/

dominion organization in narrative