Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:49:17.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Jeanette K. Gundel,
Nancy Hedberg and
Ron Zacharski
Jeanette K. Gundel*
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Nancy Hedberg
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Ron Zacharski
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
Jeanette K. Gundel, Department of Linguistics, 142 Klaeber Ct., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we propose six implicationally related cognitive statuses relevant for explicating the use of referring expressions in natural language discourse. These statuses are the conventional meanings signalled by determiners and pronouns, and interaction of the statuses with Grice's Maxim of Quantity accounts for the actual distribution and interpretation of forms when necessary conditions for the use of more than one form are met. This proposal is supported by an empirical study of the distribution of referring expressions in naturally occurring discourse in five languages—English, Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Russian, and Spanish.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , June 1993, pp. 274 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ariel, Mira. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24. 67–87.10.1017/S0022226700011567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atlas, Jay D., and Levinson, Stephen C. 1981. It-clefts, informativeness, and logical form. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 1–61. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent. 1981. Referential/attributive. Synthese 49. 219–44.10.1007/BF01064299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1991. Discourse entities and the referential/attributive distinction. Paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1980. Syntactic diffusion and the indefinite article. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1986. Intonation and its parts: Melody in spoken English. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter. 1983. Agreement and anaphora: A study of the role of pronouns in syntax and discourse. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 25–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.) 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.) 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russell, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.11.03chaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chastain, Charles. 1975. Reference and context. Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol. VII: Language, mind, and knowledge, ed. by Gunderson, K., 194–269. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. Semantics: An interdisciplinary reader in linguistics, philosophy and psychology, ed. by Steinberg, Danny and Jakobovits, Leon, 183–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Haviland, Susan E. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contract. Discourse processes: Advances in research and theory, volume 1: Discourse production and comprehension, ed. by Freedle, Roy, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Marshall, Catherine R. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi et al., 10–63.Google Scholar
Dahl, Deborah A. 1984. Recognizing specific attributes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Dahl, Deborah A. 1986. Focusing and reference resolution in Pundit. Paper presented at AAAI-86, Philadelphia.10.3115/1077146.1077161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75. 281–304.10.2307/2183143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1991. The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 1–25.Google Scholar
Erkü, Feride, and Gundel, Jeanette K. 1987. The pragmatics of indirect anaphors. The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference, ed. by Verschueren, Jef and Bertuccelli-Papi, Marcella, 533–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Toward a descriptive framework for spatial deixis. Speech, place, and action, ed. by Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W., 31–59. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet D., and Sag, Ivan. 1982. Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5. 355–98.10.1007/BF00351459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Barbara. 1987. Interactional reconstruction in real-time language processing. Cognitive Science 11. 365–87.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. C., and Sanford, A. J. 1982. The mental representation of discourse in a focussed memory system: Implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics 1. 21–41.10.1093/jos/1.1.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann, and Shroyer, Suzanne. 1989. The cataphoric use of the indefinite this in spoken narratives. Memory and Cognition 17. 536–40.10.3758/BF03197076CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Givón, T. 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction, vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1989. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Barbara. 1981. Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In Joshi et al., 84–105.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara, and Sidner, Candace L. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics 12. 175–204.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara, Joshi, Aravind K.; and Weinstein, Scott. 1983. Providing a unified account of definite noun phrases in discourse. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 21. 44–50.10.3115/981311.981320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guindon, Raymonde. 1985. Anaphora resolution: Short-term memory and focusing. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 23. 218–27.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1978. Stress, pronominalization and the given-new distinction. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 10/2.1–13.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1985. ‘Shared knowledge’ and topicality. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 83–107.10.1016/0378-2166(85)90049-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K. 1988. Universals of topic-comment structure. Studies in syntactic typology, ed. by Hammond, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, and Wirth, Jessica R., 209–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.; Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1988. On the generation and interpretation of demonstrative expressions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics 12. 216–21.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.; Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1989. Givenness, implicature and demonstrative expressions in English discourse. Chicago Linguistic Society 25/2.89–103.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.; Hedberg, Nancy; and Zacharski, Ron. 1990. Givenness, implicature, and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Berkeley Linguistics Society 16. 442–53.Google Scholar
Hajičová, Eva. 1987. Focussing—a meeting point of linguistics and artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence II: Methodology, systems, applications, ed. by Jorrand, Ph. and Sgurev, V., 311–21. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Notes on transitivity and theme in English II. Journal of Linguistics 3. 199–244.10.1017/S0022226700016613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness: A study in reference and grammaticality prediction. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1984. A note on referent identifiability and copresence. Journal of Pragmatics 8. 649–60.10.1016/0378-2166(84)90004-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1991. On (in)definite articles. Journal of Linguistics 27. 405–42.10.1017/S0022226700012731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy Ann. 1990. Discourse pragmatics and cleft sentences in English. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota dissertation.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene R. 1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Hinds, John. 1973. Anaphoric demonstratives in Japanese. Journal of the Association of Teachers of Japanese 2. 1–14.10.2307/489193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschberg, Julia. 1985. A theory of scalar implicature. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Los Angeles: UCLA dissertation.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature in context. Meaning, form, and use in context, ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Isard, Stephen. 1975. Changing the context. Formal semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward L., 287–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L.; and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.) 1981. Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kameyama, Megumi. 1986. Zero anaphora: The case of Japanese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri. 1976. Discourse referents. Syntax and semantics 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 363–86. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato. 1979. A note on sono and ano. Explorations in linguistics: Papers in honor of Kazuko Inoue, ed. by Bedell, George, Kobayashi, E., and Muraki, M., 232–43. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul. 1977. Speaker's reference and semantic reference. Contemporary perspectives in the philosophy of language, ed. by French, P., Uehling, T. and Wettstein, H., 6–27. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kronfeld, Amichai. 1990. Reference and computation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1989. Functional syntax: Anaphora, discourse and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S-Y. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1974. Remarks on this and that. Chicago Linguistics Society 10. 345–56.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1986. Topic, focus and the grammar of spoken French. Berkeley: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511813313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23. 379–434.10.1017/S0022226700011324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520352858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linde, Charlotte. 1979. Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. Discourse and syntax, ed. by Givón, T., 337–54. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ludlow, Peter, and Neale, Steven. 1991. Indefinite descriptions: In defense of Russell. Linguistics and Philosophy 14. 171–202.10.1007/BF00627402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclaran, Rose. 1982. The semantics and pragmatics of the English demonstratives. Ithaca: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William, Levy, Elena; and Tyler, Lorraine K. 1982. Producing interpretable discourse: The establishment and maintenance of reference. Speech, place, and action, ed. by Jarvella, Robert J. and Klein, Wolfgang, 339–78. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett. 1984. Language, thought, and other biological categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4124.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1978. The pragmatics of reference. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1970. Opacity, coreference, and pronouns. Synthese 21. 359–85.10.1007/BF00484805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlman, A. 1969. This as a third article in American English. American Speech 44. 76–80.10.2307/454741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981a. On the reference of indefinite-this NPs. In Joshi et al., 231–50.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981b. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. Radical pragmatics, ed. by Cole, Peter, 223–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1985. Fancy syntax and ‘shared knowledge’. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 65–81.10.1016/0378-2166(85)90048-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rochemont, Michael, and Culicover, Peter. 1990. English focus constructions and the theory of grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Bertrand. 1919. Introduction to mathematical philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1979. Referential and attributative. Monist 62. 190–208.10.5840/monist19796229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajičová; and Benešova, Eva. 1973. Topic, focus, and generative semantics. Kronberg: Scriptor Verlag.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajičová; and Panevová, Jarmila. 1986. The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sidner, Candace L. 1983. Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. Computational models of discourse, ed. by Brady, Michael and Berwick, Robert C., 267–330. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1991. Structure and intonation. Lg. 67. 260–96.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1950. On referring. Mind 61. 320–44.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Sproat, Richard; and McKoon, Gail. 1991. A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Lg. 67. 439–74.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1983. So what can we talk about now. Computational models of discourse, ed. by Brady, Michael and Berwick, Robert C., 331–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Webber, Bonnie Lynn. 1988. Discourse deixis and discourse processing. Technical Report. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science.Google Scholar
Wright, S., and Givón, T. 1987. The pragmatics of indefinite reference: Quantified text-based studies. Studies in Language 11. 1–33.10.1075/sl.11.1.02wriCrossRefGoogle Scholar