Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T06:37:52.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Balthasar Bickel
Balthasar Bickel*
Affiliation:
University of Leipzig
*
Institut für Linguistik, Universität Leipzig, Beethovenstrasse 1504109 Leipzig Germany [bickel@uni-leipzig.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Narrative production experiments reveal systematic crosslinguistic differences in the preferred ratio of overt to possible argument NPs (called here the referential density value) between three pro-drop languages of the Himalayas (Belhare, Maithili, Nepali). These differences can be accounted for by the degree to which morphosyntactic features of NPs, especially case features, are relevant for syntactic processing. This degree is the higher the more there are pivots or controllers of syntactic rules (e.g. verb agreement) that are defined not only on the basis of a thematic role hierarchy but also by a case feature (as when, for example, verb agreement is blocked by quirky case on the thematically highest argument).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 708 - 736
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 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

Bickel, Balthasar. 1995. In the vestibule of meaning: Transitivity inversion as a morphological phenomenon. Studies in Language 19. 73–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1996. Aspect, mood, and time in Belhare. Zürich: ASAS Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1999a. Grammatical relations, agreement, and genetic stability. Leipzig: University of Leipzig, ms. Online: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 1999b. Principles of event framing: Genetic stability in grammar and discourse. Leipzig: University of Leipzig, ms. Online: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~bickel.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2000. On the syntax of agreement in Tibeto-Burman. Studies in Language 24. 583–609.10.1075/sl.24.3.05bicCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2001a. Conversational relativity: An aspect of irony and reproach in Belhare. Paper presented at the 2001 International Conference on Cognitive Linguistics, Santa Barbara, CA, July 22-27, 2001.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2001b. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. Papers of the International Symposium on Non-Nominative Subjects, ed. by Bhaskararao, Peri, 207–37. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2001c. The Tibeto-Burman substrate in Nepali. Paper presented at the Substrate Workshop, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, October 20, 2001.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2002. Belhare. The Sino-Tibetan languages, ed. by Thurgood, Graham and LaPolla, Randy J., 546–70. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Hidden syntax in Belhare. Himalayan languages, ed. by Saxena, Anju, 141–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Bisang, Walter; and Yādava, Yogendra P. 1999. Face vs. empathy: The social foundations of Maithili verb agreement. Linguistics 37. 481–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, and Yādava, Yogendra P. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110. 343–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 1996. Areal typology and grammaticalization: Processes of grammaticalization based on nouns and verbs in East and Mainland South East Asian languages. Studies in Language 20. 519–97.10.1075/sl.20.3.03bisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 1998. Adverbiais: The view from the Far East. Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, ed. by van, Johan Auwera, der and Baoill, Donali P. Ó., 641–812. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18. 355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. 1989. Closed class immanence in sentence production. Cognition 31. 163–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., Liversedge, Simon P., Stewart, Andrew J.; and Urbach, Thomas P. 1995. Syntactic priming: Investigating the mental representation of language. Jounal of Psycholinguistic Research 24. 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope. 2000. Verb semantics and argument realization in Tzeltal. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, ms.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–55.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2003. Discourse and grammar. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, Vol. 2, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 47–87. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E.; and Ashby, William J. (eds.) 2003. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, Paul. 1986. The language parallax: Linguistic relativism and poetic indeterminacy. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol. 1999. Variation in agreement in the Nepali finite verb. Topics in Nepalese linguistics, ed. by Yādava, Yogendra P. and Glover, Warren G., 542–55. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar
Genetti, Carol, and Crain, Laura D. 2003. Beyond preferred argument structure: Sentences, pronouns and given referents in Nepali. In Du Bois et al., 197–223.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1996. The linguistic and cultural relativity of conversational inference. Rethinking linguistic relativity, ed. by Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C., 374–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 531–74.Google Scholar
Ichihashi-Nakayama, Kumiko. 1994. On dative ‘subject’ constructions in Nepali. Aspects of Nepali grammar (Santa Barbara papers in linguistics 6), ed. by Genetti, Carol, 41–76. Santa Barbara: Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. 1997. On zero anaphora. Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón, ed. by Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A., 275–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin P. 1976. Defining a linguistic area: South Asia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
Munro, Pamela, and Gordon, Lynn. 1982. Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean. Language 58. 81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1988. Nominalization and assertion in scientific Russian prose. Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. by Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., 399–428. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1999. Recent language contact in the Nepal Himalaya. Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, ms.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2001. Direct speech as rhetorical style in Chantyal. Paper presented at the Workshop on Tibeto-Burman Languages, Santa Barbara, CA, July 27-29, 2001.Google Scholar
Pederson, Eric. 1993. Geographic and manipulable space in two Tamil linguistic systems. Spatial information theory, ed. by Frank, Andrew U. and Campari, Irene, 294–311. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Pederson, Eric. 1995. Language as context, language as means: Spatial cognition and habitual language use. Cognitive Linguistics 6. 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, Eric. 1999. Why we can’t determine cross-linguistic correlations between clause structure and event construal (with a special supplement on what we maybe can do). Paper presented at the Workshop on Event Representation in Language and Cognition, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, December 17-19, 1999.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Branigan, Holly P. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39. 633–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Branigan, Holly P. 1999. Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3. 136–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pokharel, Mādhavaprasād. 2054 VS [1997 AD]. Nepāli vākya vyākaraṇ. Kāṭhmāṇḍü: Nepal Rājakíya Pragya-Pratiṣṭhān.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1982. Pronoun deleting processes in German. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Linguistic Society of America, San Diego, CA, January 1982.Google Scholar
Rumsey, Alan. 1990. Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92. 346–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1987. A discourse-centered approach to language and culture. American Anthropologist 89. 295–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, Joel. 1994. ‘Your friend is peeing standing up’: Kuna verbal positional suffixes in grammatical/discourse/social/cultural/poetic context. Proceedings of the Symposium about Language and Society (SALSA) 2. 99–107.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1996. From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. Rethinking linguistic relativity, ed. by Gumperz, John J. and Levinson, Stephen C., 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1997a. Mind, code, and text. Essays on language function and language type dedicated to T. Givón, ed. by Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John, and Thompson, Sandra A., 437–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1997b. Typology and rhetoric: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. Grammatical constructions, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi and Thompson, Sandra A., 195–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 2000. Verbalized events: A dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism. Evidence for linguistic relativity, ed. by Dirven, René and Niemeier, Susanne, 107–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Valin, Robert D. Jr., and LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning, and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony C. 1998. Documenting rhetorical, aesthetic, and expressive lost in language shift. Endangered languages: Language loss and community response, ed. by Grenoble, Lenore and Whaley, Lindsay J., 234–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yādava, Yogendra Prasad. 1983. Movement rules in Maithili and English: Their implications for the theory of government and binding. Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages dissertation.Google Scholar
Yādava, Yogendra P. 1999a. The complexity of Maithili verb agreement. The Yearbook of South Asian Linguistics 1999.139–52.Google Scholar
Yādava, Yogendra P. 1999b. Raising from a tensed clause and linguistic theory: Evidence from Maithili. Topics in Nepalese linguistics, ed. by Yādava, Yogendra P. and Glover, Warren W., 250–70. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Google Scholar