The meaning of going marked : a neo-Gricean pragmatic analysis of the alternate set {zero vs. full pronoun/anaphor} in Modern Greek

Part of : Γλωσσολογία ; Vol.20, 2012, pages 39-53

Η Ελληνική αποτελεί τυπική γλώσσα απαλοιφής υποκειµένου (pro-drop language), δηλαδή επιτρέπει την παράλειψη των αντωνυµιών στη θέση του εµφανούς υποκειµένου προτάσεων. Παρόλο που γενικά προτιµώνται δοµές µε µηδενικό υποκείµενο, υπάρχει και η επιλογή µιας πιο χαρακτηρισµένης αναφορικής έκφρασης όπως ο πλήρης αντωνυµικός τύπος αυτός ή το αναφορικό στοιχείο ο ίδιος. Το γεγονός αυτό εγείρει δύο σηµαντικά ζητήµατα: (α) Τι συµβαίνει όταν η αντωνυµία αυτός ή το αναφορικό στοιχείο ο ίδιος χρησιµοποιούνται αντί της µηδενικής αντωνυµίας; και (β) Ποιες είναι οι αρχές που ακολουθούν οι οµιλητές στη χρήση και ερµηνεία αυτών των αναφορικών εκφράσεων; Με βάση θεωρίες όπως των Levinson (1987, 1991, 2000) και Huang (2000, 2007) υποστηρίζεται ότι η προτίµηση για εκπεφρασµένη αναφορική έκφραση αντί της µηδενικής σχετίζεται µε το αξίωµα του τρόπου του Levinson «µην χρησιµοποιείς µια περίπλοκη, ασαφή ή µαρκαρισµένη έκφραση χωρίς λόγο». Μια λύση αποτελεί η πρόταση να θεωρηθεί ότι αυτός ο «λόγος» σχετίζεται µε µια διαζευκτική ή µια πιο µαρκαρισµένη ερµηνεία µε όρους «µη προβλεψιµότητας».
Subject (LC):
implicature, neo-Gricean pragmatic theory, overt pronoun, point of view, zero pronoun
Περιέχει σημειώσεις και βιβλιογραφία
References (1):
  1. Anagnostopoulou, E. 2003. The Syntax of Ditransitives: Evidence from Clitics. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Ariel, M. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16, 141-161.Ariel, M. 1994. Interpreting anaphoric expressions: A cognitive versus a pragmatic approach. Journalof Linguistics 30, 3-42.Ariel, M. 1996. Referring expressions and the +/- coreference distinction. In T. Fretheim & J. K.Gundel (eds), Reference and Referent Accessibility. Amsterdam/Philadlephia: John Benjamins,13-35.Ariel, M. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Baker, C. L. 1995. Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference tolocally free reflexives in British English. Language 71, 63-101.Blackwell, S. E. 1994. A Neo-Gricean Approach to Spanish NP-anaphora. Ph.D. dissertation,University of Pittsburgh.Blackwell, S. E. 1998. Constraints on Spanish NP-anaphora: The syntactic versus the pragmaticdomain. Hispania 81 (3), 606-618.Blackwell, S. E. 2000. Anaphora interpretations in Spanish utterances and the neo-Gricean pragmatictheory. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (4), 389-424.Blackwell, S. E. 2001. Testing the neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora: The influence ofconsistency constraints on interpretations of co-reference in Spanish. Journal of Pragmatics 33(6), 901-941.Blackwell, S. E. 2003. Implicatures in Discourse: The Case of Spanish NP-anaphora.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Carminati, M. 2002. The Processing of Italian Subject Pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation, University ofMassachusetts at Amherst.Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Chomsky, N. 1982. Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding.Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Culy, C. 1994. Aspects of logophoric marking. Linguistics 32, 1055-1094.Culy, C. 1997. Logophoric pronouns and point of view. Linguistics 35, 845-859.Dalrymple, M. 1993. The Syntax of Anaphoric Binding. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Edmondson, J. A. & Plank, F. 1978. Great expectations: An intensive self analysis. Linguistics andPhilosophy 2, 373-413.Enç, M. 1989. Pronouns, licensing and binding. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 51-92.Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Haspelmath, M. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25-70.Hoop, E. de, 2003. On the interpretation of stressed pronouns. In M. Weisgerber (ed.), Proceedings ofthe Conference “sub7 – Sinn und Bedeutung”. Arbeitspapier Nr. 114, FB Sprachwissenschaft,Universität Konstanz, Germany. Available at:, R. L. 1989. A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Huang, Y. 1991. A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27, 301-333.Huang, Y. 1994. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora: A Study with Special Reference to Chinese.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Huang, Y. 2000. Anaphora: A Cross Linguistic Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Iatridou, S. 1986. An anaphor not bound in its category. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 766-772.Jaeggli, O. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.Jaeggli, O. & Safir, K. J. (eds) 1989. The Null Subject Parameter. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Joseph, D. B. & Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm.Kameyama, M. 1999. Stressed and unstressed pronouns: Complementary preferences. In P. Bosch &R. van der Sandt (eds), Focus. Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 306-321.Καρανάσιος, Γ. 1989. Κενές κατηγορίες και συντακτικό υποκείµενο στα Ελληνικά. Μελέτες για τηνΕλληνική Γλώσσα 10, 169-185.Kiparsky, P. 2002. Disjoint reference and the typology of pronouns. In K. Ingrid & B. Stiebels (eds),More than Words. Studia Grammatica 53, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 179-226.Kordoni, V. 1995. Psychological predicates in Modern Greek. In G. Drachman, A. MalikoutiDrachman,C. Klidi & J. Fykias (eds), Greek Linguistics 1995. Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Conference on Greek Linguistics. Graz: Neugebauer, 535-544.Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse and Empathy. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.Kuno, S. 2004. Empathy and direct discourse perspectives. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (eds), Handbookof Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, 315-343.Kuno, S. & Kaburaki, E. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 627-672.Levinson, S. C. 1987. Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: A partial pragmatic reduction ofbinding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23, 379-434.Levinson, S. C. 1991. Pragmatic reduction of pragmatic conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics27, 107-161.Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature.Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Luján, M. 1985. Binding properties of overt pronouns in null pronominal languages. Papers from theGeneral Session at the 21st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: CLS,421-438.Luján, M. 1986. Stress and binding pronouns. Papers from the General Session at the 22nd RegionalMeeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: CLS, 248-262.Maling, Joan. 1984. Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy7, 211-241.Montalbetti, M. 1984. After Binding: On the Interpretation of Pronouns. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT.Philippaki-Warburton, I. 1987. The theory of empty categories and the pro-drop parameter in ModernGreek. Journal of Linguistics 23, 289-318.Reinhart, T. & Reunald, E. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657-720.Sanoudaki, E. 2003. Greek ‘strong’ pronouns and the delay of principle B effect. Reading WorkingPapers in Linguistics 7, 103-124.Sells, P. 1987. Aspects of logophoricity. Linguistic Inquiry 18, 445-479.Stirling, L. 1993. Switch Reference and Discourse Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Varlokosta, S. 1994. Issues on Modern Greek sentential complementation. Ph.D. dissertation.University of Meryland, College Park.Varlokosta, S. & Hornstein, N. 1993. A bound pronoun in Modern Greek. Natural Language andLinguistic Theory 11, 175-195.Zribi-Hertz, A. 1989. Anaphora binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns insentence and discourse. Language 65, 695-727.Zribi-Hertz, A. 1995. Emphatic or reflexive? On the endophoric character of French lui-même andsimilar complex pronouns. Journal of Linguistics 31 (2), 333-374.