1887
The referential ambiguity of personal pronouns and its pragmatic consequences
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

On the referential ambiguity of personal pronouns and its pragmatic consequences, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/prag.26.3.01dec-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.26.3.01dec
2016-09-01
2019-08-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abbott, Barbara
    (2010) Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benveniste, Émile
    (1966) Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. 1. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biq, Yung-O
    (1991) The multiple uses of the second person singular pronoun ni in conversational Mandarin. Journal of Pragmatics16: 307-321. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(91)90084‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90084-B [Google Scholar]
  4. Bolinger, Dwight
    (1979) To catch a metaphor: You as a norm. American Speech54: 194-209. doi: 10.2307/454949
    https://doi.org/10.2307/454949 [Google Scholar]
  5. Borthen, Kaja
    (2010) On how we interpret plural pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics42.7: 1799-1815. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.008 [Google Scholar]
  6. Boutet, Josiane
    (1986) La référence à la personne en français parlé: Le cas de ‘on’. Langage et société38: 19-50. doi: 10.3406/lsoc.1986.2070
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lsoc.1986.2070 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bravo, Diana
    (1999) ¿Imagen 'positiva' vs. imagen 'negativa'? Pragmática socio-cultural y componentes de face. Oralia2: 155-184.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brisard, Frank
    (2002) Grounding. The epistemic footing of deixis and reference. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110899801
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, Penelope , and Stephen Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brumme, Jenny
    2007) Praktische Grammatik der katalanischen Sprache. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bühler, Karl
    (1982) [1934] Sprachtheorie. Stuttgart: Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cabredo Hofherr, Patricia
    (2003) ‘Arbitrary’ readings of 3pl pronominals. In Matthias Weisgerber (ed.), Proceedings of the conference ‘sub7 – Sinn und Bedeutung’. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114 des FB Sprachwissenschaft,Universität Konstanz. ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/conferences/sub7/proceedings/download/sub7_hofherr.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cysouw, Michael
    (2003) The paradigmatic structure of person marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Dancygier, Barbara , and Eve Sweetser
    (2005) Mental spaces in grammar. Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486760
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486760 [Google Scholar]
  15. De Cock, Barbara
    (2011) Why we can be you: The use of 1st person plural forms with hearer reference in English and Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics43.11: 2762-2775. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2014) Profiling discourse participants: Forms and functions in Spanish conversation and debates. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.246
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.246 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and non-subjectivity across spoken language genres. Spanish in context12.1: 10-34. doi: 10.1075/sic.12.1.02coc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.12.1.02coc [Google Scholar]
  18. de Hoop, Helen , and Lotte Hogeweg
    (eds.) (2015)  The flexibility of pronoun reference in context . Special issue in Journal of Pragmaticsvol. 88.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. de Hoop, Helen , and Sammie Tarenskeen
    (2015) It’s all about you in Dutch. Journal of pragmatics88: 163-175. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. DeMello, George
    (2000) ‘Tú’ impersonal en el habla culta. Nueva revista de filología hispánica48.2: 359-372.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Devís Márquez, Pablo
    (2003) La impersonalidad y las denominadas construcciones impersonales en español. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie199.3: 393-442.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ducrot, Oswald
    (1984) Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dudenredaktion
    (2005) Duden. Vol. 4: Die Grammatik 7, völlig neu erarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim u.a.: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Enfield, Nick , and Tanya Stivers
    (2007) Person reference in interaction. Linguistic, cultural and social perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486746
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486746 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fauconnier, Gilles
    (1985) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge/Mass.: The MIT Press [reprinted 1994 Cambridge: CUP].
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fauconnier, Gilles , and Mark Turner
    (2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gast, Volker , and Johan van der Auwera
    (2013) Towards a distributional typology of human impersonal pronouns, based on data from European languages. In Dik Bakker , and Martin Haspelmath (eds.), Languages across boundaries: Studies in the memory of Anna Siewierska. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp.119-158.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Garrido, Joaquín
    (1998) Relevancia frente a retórica: Reivindicación del arte de hablar. In Tomás Albadalejo Mayordomo , Emilio del Río Sanz , y José Antonio Caballero (eds.), Quintiliano: Historia y actualidad de la retórica. Actas del Congreso Internacional. Logroño: Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, pp. 577-587. Reproduced inwww.ucm.es/info/especulo/numero13/implicat.html
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Gelabert-Desnoyer, Jaime
    (2006) Registro y funciones de "nosotros" en el discurso parlamentario español. Lingüística en la Red4: 1-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Goffman, Erving
    (1979) Footing. Semiotica25.1-2: 1-29. doi: 10.1515/semi.1979.25.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Gruber, Bettina
    (2014) The spatiotemporal dimensions of person. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday, M.A.K
    (1994²) An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Helmbrecht, Johannes
    (1999) The typology of 1st person marking and its cognitive background. In Masako K. Hiraga , Chris Sinha , and Sherman Wilcox (eds.), Cultural, psychological and typological issues in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.285-97. doi: 10.1075/cilt.152.20hel
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.152.20hel [Google Scholar]
  34. (2015) A typology of non-prototypical uses of personal pronouns: Synchrony and diachrony. Journal of pragmatics88: 176-189. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  35. Hyman, Eric
    (2004) The indefinite YOU. English Studies2: 161-176. doi: 10.1076/enst.85.2.161.30496
    https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.85.2.161.30496 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jensen, Mikkel Hollænder
    (2002) La referencia en algunos expresiones impersonales - Diferentes lecturas de uno y la segunda persona del singular. Romansk Forum - XV Skandinaviske romanistkongress, pp.127-38.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Kitagawa, Chisato , and Adrienne Lehrer
    (1990) Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics14: 739-759. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90004‑W
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90004-W [Google Scholar]
  38. Kibrik, Andrej
    (2011) Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199215805.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kluge, Bettina
    (2012) Referential ambiguity in discourse. The generic use of the second person singular in the Romance languages. Habilitation thesis, Universität Bielefeld.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Laberge, Suzanne
    (1977) Étude de la variation des pronoms sujets définis et indéfinis dans le français parlé à Montreal. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Montreal: University of Montreal.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Lakoff, George
    (1996) Sorry, I’m not myself today: The metaphor system for conceptualizing the self. In Gilles Fauconnier , and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds, and grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp.91-123.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Langacker, Ronald W
    (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lavandera, Beatriz
    (1984) Creative variation. Shifting between personal and impersonal in Spanish discourse. Arbeitspapier Nr. 103 des Sonderforschungsbereichs 99. Konstanz: Konstanz University.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Lyons, John
    (1982) Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Robert J. Jarvella , and Wolfgang Klein (eds.), Speech, place and action: Studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: Wiley, pp.101-124.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Malamud, Sophie
    (2006) Semantics and pragmatics of arbitrariness. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Malamud, Sophia
    (2007) Impersonal indexicals: You, man, si . URL:people.brandeis.edu/~malamud/liss.pdf
  47. (2012) Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man, and du . Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics15.1: 1-48. doi: 10.1007/s10828‑012‑9047‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-012-9047-6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Malchukov, Andrej , and Anna Siewierska
    (2011) Impersonal constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/slcs.124
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.124 [Google Scholar]
  49. Myhill, John
    (1997) Towards a functional typology of agent defocusing. Linguistics35: 799-844. doi: 10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.799
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1997.35.5.799 [Google Scholar]
  50. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Real Academia Española
    (2009) Nueva gramática de la lengua española. 2 vols. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Rubba, Jo
    (1996) Alternate grounds in the interpretation of deictic expressions. In Gilles Fauconnier , and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, worlds and grammars. Chicago: University Press, pp.227-261.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sansò, Andrea
    (2006) ‘Agent defocusing’ revisited. Passive and impersonal constructions in some European languages. In Werner Abraham , and Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology. Form and function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.232-273. doi: 10.1075/tsl.68.15san
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.68.15san [Google Scholar]
  54. Scheibman, Joanne
    (2002) Point of view and grammar. Structural patterns of subjectivity in American English conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/sidag.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2004) Inclusive and exclusive patterning of the English first person plural: Evidence from conversation. In Michel Achard , and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture and mind. Stanford: CSLI, pp.377-96.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Siewierska, Anna
    (2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511812729
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812729 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2011) Overlap and complementarity in reference impersonals: MAN-constructions vs. third person plural-impersonals in the languages of Europe. In Andrej Malchukov , and Anna Siewierska (eds.), Impersonal constructions: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.57-90. doi: 10.1075/slcs.124.03sie
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.124.03sie [Google Scholar]
  58. Siewierska, Anna , and Maria Papastathi
    (2011) Towards a typology of third person plural impersonals. Linguistics49.3: 575-610. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.018 [Google Scholar]
  59. Stewart, Miranda
    (1992) Personal reference and politeness strategies in French and Spanish: A corpus-based approach. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University, Department of Modern Languages.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Tarenskeen, Sammie
    (2010) From you to me (and back). The flexible meaning of the second person pronoun in Dutch. Master’s thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen. URL:www.ru.nl/publish/pages/518697/sammie_scriptie_definitief.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Temmerman, Martina
    (2008) “Today, we’re all Danes”. Argumentative meaning of the 1st and 2nd person pronouns in newspaper editorials on the Muhammad cartoons. L’Analisi Linguistica e LetterariaXVI.1: 289-303.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Traugott Closs, Elizabeth
    (2003) From subjectification to intersubjectification. In Raymond Hickey (ed.), Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.124-139. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486937.009 [Google Scholar]
  63. Wechsler, Stephen
    (2010) What 'you' and 'I' mean to each other: Person indexicals, self-ascription, and theory of mind. Language86.2: 332-365. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0220
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0220 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.26.3.01dec
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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