1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Functional Perspective on Language and Discourse
  4. Chapter

Nominal reference and the dynamics of discourse

A cognitive-functional approach

image of Nominal reference and the dynamics of discourse

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).

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Leuven, Belgium

References

  1. Butler, Christopher S
    1985  Systemic Linguistics. Theory and Applications . London: Batsford.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2003  Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-­Functional Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 63]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Carlson, Greg
    1978  Reference to Kinds in English . Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 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: 10.1075/pbns.38.03cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.03cha [Google Scholar]
  6. Close, Reginald A
    1975  A Reference Grammar for Students of English . London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. Gundel, Jeannette K. , Nancy Hedberg , and Ron Zacharski
    1993 “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. ” Language 69: 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  11. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976  Cohesion in English . London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawkins, John A
    1978  Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction . London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Huddleston, Rodney
    1978 “Review of Halliday and Hasan 1976.” Lingua 45: 333–354. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(78)90030‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(78)90030-X [Google Scholar]
  14. Langacker, Ronald W
    1991  Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 2. Descriptive Application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. ” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 143–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Lyons, Christopher
    1999  Definiteness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  17. Martin, James R
    1992  English Text: System and Structure . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.59
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Milsark, Gary
    1977 “Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English.” Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Van Langendonck, Willy
    1999 “Neurolinguistic and Syntactic Evidence for Basic Level Meaning in Proper Names.” Functions of Language 6: 95–138. doi: 10.1075/fol.6.1.04van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.6.1.04van [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Butler, Christopher S
    1985  Systemic Linguistics. Theory and Applications . London: Batsford.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 2003  Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-­Functional Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 63]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Carlson, Greg
    1978  Reference to Kinds in English . Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. 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: 10.1075/pbns.38.03cha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.38.03cha [Google Scholar]
  6. Close, Reginald A
    1975  A Reference Grammar for Students of English . London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. 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]
  10. Gundel, Jeannette K. , Nancy Hedberg , and Ron Zacharski
    1993 “Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. ” Language 69: 274–307. doi: 10.2307/416535
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416535 [Google Scholar]
  11. Halliday, Michael A. K. , and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976  Cohesion in English . London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hawkins, John A
    1978  Definiteness and Indefiniteness: A Study in Reference and Grammaticality Prediction . London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Huddleston, Rodney
    1978 “Review of Halliday and Hasan 1976.” Lingua 45: 333–354. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(78)90030‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(78)90030-X [Google Scholar]
  14. Langacker, Ronald W
    1991  Foundations of Cognitive Linguistics. Vol. 2. Descriptive Application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2001 “Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. ” Cognitive Linguistics 12: 143–188.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Lyons, Christopher
    1999  Definiteness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511605789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605789 [Google Scholar]
  17. Martin, James R
    1992  English Text: System and Structure . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.59
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  18. 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]
  19. Milsark, Gary
    1977 “Toward an Explanation of Certain Peculiarities of the Existential Construction in English.” Linguistic Analysis 3: 1–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 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]
  21. Van Langendonck, Willy
    1999 “Neurolinguistic and Syntactic Evidence for Basic Level Meaning in Proper Names.” Functions of Language 6: 95–138. doi: 10.1075/fol.6.1.04van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.6.1.04van [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270207-pbns.247.10dav
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270207-pbns.247.10dav
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270207
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error