1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics and Society
  4. Volume 12, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 12, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Hawkins (1994199920042014a) proposes a performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis, claiming that grammars can be shaped by processing systems with reference to the degree of preference in communication. Given that Hawkins’s proposal mainly highlights the role of efficiency in language comprehension, this paper demonstrates that parsing principles can also be employed to account for language production. Based on an analysis of the production mechanism behind multiple occurrences of the Chinese reflexive ‘self’ in a single clause, it shows that the notion of intersubjectivity can sometimes play a significant role in sentence planning, in the sense that the Chinese reflexive assists speakers to produce an utterance in line with the principle of efficiency, which will in turn help hearers compute the intended meaning by identifying potential referents.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.17031.yan
2021-06-03
2025-02-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ps.17031.yan
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, Jennifer, Janet Eisenband, Sarah Brown-Schmidt and John Trueswell
    2000 “The rapid use of gender information: Evidence of the time course of pronoun resolution from eyetracking”. Cognition76: B13–B26. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(00)00073‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00073-1 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bresnan, Joan, Shipar Dingare and Christopher D. Manning
    2001 “Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: voice and person in English and Lummi”. InProceedings of the LFG 01 Conference, ed. byM. Butt and T. H. King, 13–32. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Blake, Barry
    2004 Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Breban, Tine
    2010 English Adjectives of Comparison: Lexical and Grammaticalized Uses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110216011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Brown-Schmidt, Sarah and Michael Tanenhaus
    2008 “Real-time investigation of referential domains in unscripted conversation: A targeted language game approach”. Cognitive Science32: 643–684. 10.1080/03640210802066816
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210802066816 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, Joan and Paul Hopper
    (Eds.) 2001 Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.45
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45 [Google Scholar]
  7. Carroll, Peter John
    1976 Kunwinjku (Gunwinggu): A language of Western Arnhem Land. Canberra: Australian National University master’s thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Chomsky, Noam
    1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Corbett, Albert and Frederick Chang
    1983 Pronoun disambiguation: Accessing potential antecedents. Memory & Cognition11: 283–294. 10.3758/BF03196975
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196975 [Google Scholar]
  10. de Pinedo-Garcia, Manuel and Jason Nobel
    2008 “Beyond persons: extending the personal/subpersonal distinction to non-rational animals and artificial agents”. Biology and Philosophy23: 87–100. 10.1007/s10539‑007‑9077‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-007-9077-7 [Google Scholar]
  11. Dennett, Daniel
    1986 Content and Consciousness. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Du Bois, John W.
    1985 “Competing motivations”. InIconicity in Syntax, ed. byJ. Haiman, 343–365. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.6.17dub
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.17dub [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, Victor and Robert Slevc
    2007 “Grammatical encoding”. InThe Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. byGareth Gaskell, 453–470. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Filimonova, Elena
    1999 Universal’nye anomalii lichnyx mestoimenij [Universal Anomalies of Personal Pronouns]. Doctoral dissertation, Moscow State University.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2002 “Person hierarchy and its implications: The case of Aymara”. InCurrent Studies on South American Languages [Indigenous Languages of Latin America, 3], ed. byM. Crevels, S. van de Kerke, S. Meira & H. van der Voort, Leiden: Research School of Asian, African, and American Studies (CNWS)199–213.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fillmore, Charles
    1975 Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fodor, Janet D.
    1978 “Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations”. Linguistic Inquiry9: 427–473.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Gabelentz, Georg von der
    1901 Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: C. H. Tauchnitz.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Greenberg, Joseph
    1966 Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Haspelmath, Martin
    1999 “Explaining article-possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax”. Language75: 227–243. 10.2307/417260
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417260 [Google Scholar]
  21. Hawkins, John A.
    1994 A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 1999 “Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars”. Language75: 244–285. 10.2307/417261
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417261 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2014a Crosslinguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199664993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2014b “Patterns in competing motivations and the interaction of principles”. InCompeting Motivations in Grammar and Usage, ed. byB. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov and E. Moravcsik, 54–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  26. Huang, C.-T. James, Audrey Y-H. Li and Yafei Li
    2009 The Syntax of Chinese. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139166935
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166935 [Google Scholar]
  27. Keenan, Edward and Bernard Comrie
    1977 “Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar”. Linguistic Inquiry8: 63–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Kirby, Simon
    1999 Function, selection and innateness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Koyama, Wataru
    2009 “Indexically anchored onto the deictic center of discourse: Grammar, sociocultural interaction, and ‘emancipatory pragmatics’”. Journal of Pragmatics41: 79–92. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Levelt, Willem J. M.
    1989 Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Xiaoqian and Xiaolin Zhou
    2010 “Who is ziji? ERP responses to the Chinese reflexive pronoun during sentence comprehension”. Brain Research1331: 96–104. 10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.050
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2010.03.050 [Google Scholar]
  32. MacWhinney, Brian, Andrej Malchukov and Edith Moravcsik
    (Eds.) 2014 Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Moravcsik, Edith
    2014 “Introduction”. InCompeting Motivations in Grammar and Usage, ed. byB. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov and E. Moravcsik, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198709848.003.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. McDaniel, Dana, Cecile Mckee, Wayne Cowart and Merrill Garret
    2015 “The role of the language production system in shaping grammars”. Language91: 415–441. 10.1353/lan.2015.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0021 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mitkov, Ruslan
    2002 Anaphora Resolution. London: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Pan, Haihua
    1997 Constraints on Reflexivization in Mandarin Chinese. New York: Garland Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag
    1994 Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Pollard, Carl and Ping Xue
    1998 “Chinese reflexive ziji: syntactic reflexives vs. nonsyntactic reflexives”. Jounal of East Asian Linguistics7: 287–318. 10.1023/A:1008388024532
     https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008388024532 [Google Scholar]
  39. Shuai, Lan, Tao Gong and Yicheng Wu
    2013 “Who is who? Interpretation of multiple occurrences of the Chinese reflexives: evidence from real-time sentence processing”. PLOS ONE8(9): e73226. 10.1371/journal.pone.0073226
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073226 [Google Scholar]
  40. Tanenhaus, Michael, Michael J. Spivey-Knowlton, Kathleen M. Eberhand and Julie C. Sedivy
    1995 “Intergration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension”. Science268: 1632–1634. 10.1126/science.7777863
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863 [Google Scholar]
  41. Tosco, Mauro
    2010 Why contrast matters: Information structure in Gawwada (East Cushitic). InThe Expression of Information Structure, ed. byI. Fiedler and A. Schwarz, 315–348. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.91.12tos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.91.12tos [Google Scholar]
  42. van der Wal, Jenneke
    2015 “Information structure, (inter)subjectivity and objectification”. Journal of Linguistics51: 425–464. 10.1017/S0022226714000541
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226714000541 [Google Scholar]
  43. Verhagen, Arie
    2005 Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 2008 “Intersubjectivity and the architecture of the language system”. InThe Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectity, ed. byJ. Zlatev, T. P. Timothy, C. Sinha and E. Itkonen, 307–331. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.12.17ver
     https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.12.17ver [Google Scholar]
  45. Xue, Ping, Carl Pollard and Ivan A. Sag
    1994 “A new perspective on Chinese reflexive ziji”. InProceedings of the 13th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 432–477. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Yang, Xiaolong and Yicheng Wu
    2015 “Whether or not multiple occurrences of ziji can take distinct antecedents: A deictic perspective”. Journal of Pragmatics87: 142–155. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.08.002 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.17031.yan
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chinese reflexive; efficiency principle; intersubjectivity; language production; performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis

Most Cited

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