Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 9, 2021

Personal Pronouns: Variation and Ambiguity

Nuria Hernández

Abstract

Personal pronouns are vague and highly versatile. In addition to their canonical functions as deictics and anaphors, they can be used to express meanings that go beyond morphosyntactic mapping and feature matching. Potential ambiguity is minimised by a variety of syntactic and extra-syntactic means, including the conversational context. Disambiguation through categorical morphological distinctions is rarely needed. Different non-canonical uses that may theoretically result in ambiguous utterances are presented to illustrate how speakers embrace variable pronoun choice that eludes prescriptive isomorphism, for the sake of expressivity and pragmatic meaning. An ‘Avoid Ambiguity’ principle is suggested for conversation that takes account of the benefits of linguistic variability, vagueness, and the situatedness of natural talk.


Corresponding author: Nuria Hernández, Department of Anglophone Studies, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Universitätsstr. 12, 45141 Essen, Germany, E-mail:

References

Aarts, B., D. Denison, and E. Keizer. 2004. Fuzzy Grammar: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Adger, D., and D. Harbour. 2008. “Why Phi?” In Phi Theory: Phi-Features Across Modules and Interfaces (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics), edited by D. Harbour, D. Adger, and S. Béjar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Anderwald, L., and B. Kortmann. 2013. “Typological Methods in Dialectology.” In Research Methods in Language Variation and Change, edited by M. Krug, and J. Schlüter, 313–33. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511792519.021Search in Google Scholar

Anttila, A., and V. Fong. 2004. “Variation, Ambiguity and Noun Classes in English.” Special Issue Variation in Form Versus Variation in Meaning. Lingua 114 (9–10): 1253–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

Balhorn, M. 2004. “The Rise of Epicene ‘They’.” Journal of English Linguistics 32 (2): 79–104, https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424204265824.Search in Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y. 1954. “Indexical Expressions.” Mind 63 (251): 359–79, https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/lxiii.251.359.Search in Google Scholar

Bhat, D. N. S. 2004. Pronouns. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Brandt, P. A. 2016. “Deixis – A Semiotic Mystery: Enunciation and Reference.” Cognitive Semiotics 9 (1): 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1515/cogsem-2016-0001.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, C. H. 1985. “Polysemy, Overt Marking, and Function Words.” Language Sciences 7 (2): 283–332, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0388-0001(85)80003-6.Search in Google Scholar

Bußmann, H., G. P. Trauth, and K. Kazzazi, eds. 1996. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Cantrall, W. R. 1973. “Reflexive Pronouns and Viewpoint.” Linguistische Berichte 28: 42–50.Search in Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, A., and M. Starke. 1999. “The Typology of Structural Deficiency: A Case Study of the Three Classes of Pronouns.” In Clitics in the Language of Europe, edited by H. van Riemsdijk, 145–233. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110804010.145Search in Google Scholar

Carminati, M. N. 2005. “Processing Reflexes of the Feature Hierarchy (Person > Number > Gender) and Implications for Linguistic Theory.” Lingua 115: 259–85, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.10.006.Search in Google Scholar

Carvalho, D. 2017. The Internal Structure of Personal Pronouns. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Chandler, D. 2007. Semiotics: The Basics, 2nd ed. London, New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203014936Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. “Lectures on Government and Binding.” In Studies in Generative Grammar, Vol. 9. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110884166Search in Google Scholar

Clopath, C., B. Tobias, M. Hübener, and T. Rose. 2017. “Variance and Invariance of Neuronal Long-Term Representations.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London – Series B: Biological Sciences 372 (1715): 20160161, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0161.Search in Google Scholar

Cysouw, M. 2013. “Inclusive/Exclusive Distinction in Independent Pronouns.” In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by M. S. Dryer, and M. Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, kein Datum. Also available at http://wals.info/chapter/39.Search in Google Scholar

Dalrymple, M., and R. M. Kaplan 2000. “Feature Indeterminacy and Feature Resolution.” Language 76 (4): 759–98, https://doi.org/10.2307/417199.Search in Google Scholar

Déchaine, R.-M., and M. Wiltschko. 2002. “Decomposing Pronouns.” Linguistic Inquiry 33 (3): 409–42, https://doi.org/10.1162/002438902760168554.Search in Google Scholar

de Saussure, F. [1916] 2011. “Course in General Linguistics (Cours de Linguistique Generale).” In Übers. Wade Baskin, edited by P. Meisel, and H. Saussy. New York: Columbia University Press.Search in Google Scholar

de Cock, B., and B. Kluge. 2016. “On the Referential Ambiguity of Personal Pronouns and Its Pragmatic Consequences.” Pragmatics 26 (3): 351–60, https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.26.3.01dec.Search in Google Scholar

Dryer, M. S., and M. Haspelmath. 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Also available at http://wals.info.Search in Google Scholar

Eckert, P. 2012. “Three Waves of Variation Study: The Emergence of Meaning in the Study of Sociolinguistic Variation.” Annual Review of Anthropology 41: 87–100, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828.Search in Google Scholar

Edelman, G. M. 1992. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, V. 2006. “Evolution of Semantics.” In Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed., edited by K. Brown, 345–53. Elsevier.10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04748-9Search in Google Scholar

Evans, N., and S. C. Levinson. 2009. “The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and Its Importance for Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32 (5): 429–92, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999094x.Search in Google Scholar

Falkum, I. L., and A. Vicente. 2015. “Polysemy: Current Perspectives and Approaches.” Lingua 157 (special issue): 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2015.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Faltz, L. M. 1985. Reflexivization: A Study in Universal Syntax (Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics series). New York, London: Garland.Search in Google Scholar

Fludernik, M. 1989/90. “Jespersen’s Shifters – Reflections on Deixis and Subjectivity in Language.” Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 15/16: 97–116.Search in Google Scholar

Gardelle, L., and S. Sorlin. 2015. The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns (Studies in Language Companion Series 71). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.171Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, M. H., E. Uffing, N. Van Vaeck, and B. Szmrecsanyi. 2021. “Variation Isn’t Hard: Morphosyntactic Choice Does Not Predict Production Difficulty.” PLoS ONE 16 (6): e0252602, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252602.Search in Google Scholar

Goddard, C. 1995. “Who are We? The Natural Semantics of Pronouns.” Language Sciences 17 (1): 99–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/0388-0001(95)00011-j.Search in Google Scholar

Greenbaum, S. 1996. The Oxford English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. H. 1988. “The First Person Dual Inclusive as an Ambiguous Category.” Studies in Language 12 (1): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.12.1.02gre.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by P. Cole, and J. L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, J. 1980. “The Iconicity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation.” Language 56 (3): 515–40, https://doi.org/10.2307/414448.Search in Google Scholar

Harbour, D., D. Adger, and S. Béjar. 2008. Phi Theory – Phi-Features Across Modules and Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, H., and E. Ritter. 2002a. “Person and Number in Pronouns: A Feature-Geometric Analysis.” Language 78 (3): 482–526, https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0158.Search in Google Scholar

Harley, H., and E. Ritter. 2002b. “Structuring the Bundle: A Universal Morphosyntactic Feature Geometry.” In Pronouns: Grammar and Representation, edited by H. J. Simon, and H. Wiese, 23–39. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.52.05harSearch in Google Scholar

Haspelmath, M. 2008. “A Frequentist Explanation of Some Universals of Reflexive Marking.” Linguistic Discovery 6 (1): 40–63, https://doi.org/10.1349/ps1.1537-0852.a.331.Search in Google Scholar

Helmbrecht, J. 2015. “A Typology of Non-prototypical Uses of Personal Pronouns: Synchrony and Diachrony.” Journal of Pragmatics 88: 176–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

Hernández, N. 2002. “A Context Hierarchy of Untriggered Self-Forms in English.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik. A Quarterly of Language, Literature and Culture. Special issue 3/2002: Reflexives and Intensifiers: The Use of Self-forms in English 3: 269–84.Search in Google Scholar

Hernández, N. 2006. User’s Guide to FRED: Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects. Freiburg: University of Freiburg online publications. Also available at http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/2489.Search in Google Scholar

Hernández, N. 2011. “Pronouns.” In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects II: Modals, Pronouns, and Complement Clauses, edited by N. Hernández, D. Kolbe, and M. Schulz, 53–191. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110240290.53Search in Google Scholar

Hernández, N. 2012. Personal Pronouns in the Dialects of England: A Corpus Study of Grammatical Variation in Spontaneous Speech. Freiburg: University of Freiburg, FreiDok plus. Also available at http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/8431.Search in Google Scholar

Hernández, N. 2015. “Free Self-Forms in Discourse-Pragmatic Functions: The Role of Viewpoint and Contrast in Picture NPs.” In The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns, edited by S. Sorlin, and L. Gardelle, 45–67. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.171.03herSearch in Google Scholar

Hjelmslev, L. 1961. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language (translated by F. J. Whitfield). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hockett, C. F. 1959. “Animal “Languages” and Human Language.” Human Biology 31 (1): 32–9.Search in Google Scholar

Howe, S. 1996. The Personal Pronouns in the Germanic Languages: A Study of Personal Pronoun Morphology and Change in the Germanic Languages from the First Records to the Present Day (Studia Linguistica Germanica 43). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110819205Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Y. 2000. Anaphora – A Cross-Linguistic Study. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, R., and G. K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Ingram, D. 1978. “Typology and Universals of Personal Pronouns.” In Universals of Human Language. Volume 3: Word Structure, edited by J. H. Greenberg, 214–47. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1949. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Volume VII: Syntax. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Search in Google Scholar

Ježek, E., and P. Ramat. 2009. “On Parts-of-Speech Transcategorization.” Folia Linguistica 43 (2): 391–416.10.1515/FLIN.2009.011Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 2002. “Disjoint Reference and the Typology of Pronouns.” In More than Words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich (Studia Grammatica 53), edited by I. Kaufmann, and B. Stiebels, 179–226. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.10.1515/9783050081274-008Search in Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 2008. “Universals Constrain Change; Change Results in Typological Generalizations.” In Language Universals and Language Change, 23–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199298495.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Koch, P., and W. Oesterreicher. 1985. “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und.” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110244922.15.Search in Google Scholar

Koktova, E. 1999. Word-Order Based Grammar (Trends in Linguistics – Studies and Monographs 121). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110803396Search in Google Scholar

König, E., and P. Siemund. 1997. “On the Development of Reflexive Pronouns in English: A Case Study in Grammaticalization.” In Anglistentag 1996 Dresden – Proceedings of the Conference of the German Association of University Teachers of English, Vol. XVIII, edited by U. Böker, and H. Sauer, 95–108. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Kortmann, B. 2004. Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197327Search in Google Scholar

Kortmann, B. 2020. English Linguistics: Essentials. Berlin: J.B. Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-05678-8Search in Google Scholar

Kortmann, B., and B. Szmrecsanyi. 2011. “Parameters of Morphosyntactic Variation in World Englishes: Prospects and Limitations of Searching for Universals.” In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, edited by P. Siemund, 257–83. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110238068.264Search in Google Scholar

Kortmann, B., K. Lunkenheimer, and K. Ehret. 2020. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English 3.0. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Also available at http://ewave-atlas.org.Search in Google Scholar

Kuno, S. 1987. Functional Syntax: Anaphora, Discourse, and Empathy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1972. “Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology.” Language in Society I: 97–120, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006576.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1982. “Building on Empirical Foundations.” In Perspectives on Historical Linguistics, edited by W. P. Lehmann, and Y. Malkiel, 17–92. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.24.06labSearch in Google Scholar

Langer, S. K. 2000. “Language and Thought.” In Language Awareness: Readings for College Writers, edited by P. Eschholz, A. Rosa, and V. Clark, 96–101. Boston: Bedfors/St. Martin’s.Search in Google Scholar

Lass, R. 1990. “How to do Things with Junk: Exaptation and Language Evolution.” Journal of Linguistics 26 (1): 79–102, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700014432.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Levi-Strauss, C. 1972. Structural Anthropology. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139165570Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, C. 1999. Definiteness (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511605789Search in Google Scholar

Matthews, P. 2001. A Short History of Structural Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612596Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, B. 1985. Old English Syntax, Vol. I: Concord, the Parts of Speech, and the Sentence. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198119357.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Noyer, R. R. 1992. “Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological.” PhD thesis. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Passmore, J. 1985. Recent Philosophers. Duckworth: Pavis.Search in Google Scholar

Paterson, L. L. ed. (forthcoming, est. 2022). The Routledge Handbook of Pronouns. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Piantadosi, S. T., H. Tily, and E. Gibson. 2012. “The Communicative Function of Ambiguity in Language.” Cognition 122 (3): 280–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004.Search in Google Scholar

Poplack, S. 2018. “Categories of Grammar and Categories of Speech: When the Quest for Symmetry Meets Inherent Variability.” In Questioning Theoretical Primitives in Linguistic Inquiry: Papers in Honor of Ricardo Otheguy (Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 76), edited by N. Shin, and D. Erker, 7–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sfsl.76.02popSearch in Google Scholar

Quirk, R., and S. Greenbaum. 1984. A University Grammar of English, Based on a Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, and G. Leech. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Rieger, B. B. 1981. “Feasible Fuzzy Semantics: On Some Problems of How to Handle Word Meaning Empirically.” In Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches in Word Semantics (Research in Text Theory 6), edited by H. J. Eikmeyer, and H. Rieser, 193–209. Berlin, New York: W. De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110842524-010Search in Google Scholar

Rieger, B. B. 2003. “Semiotic Cognitive Information Processing: Learning to Understand Discourse. A Systemic Model of Meaning Constitution.” In Adaptivity and Learning, edited by R. Kühn, R. Menzel, W. Menzel, U. Ratsch, M. M. Richter, and I. O. Stamatescu, 347–403. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-662-05594-6_24Search in Google Scholar

Rizzi, L. 2009. “The Discovery of Language Invariance and Variation, and its Relevance for the Cognitive Sciences.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 467–8, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x09990574.Search in Google Scholar

Rullmann, H. 2004. “First and Second Person Pronouns as Bound Variables.” Linguistic Inquiry 53 (1): 159–68, https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2004.35.1.159.Search in Google Scholar

Sapir, E. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Search in Google Scholar

Sapir, E. 1933. “Language.” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences Bd. 9: 155–68.10.1017/CBO9781139629430Search in Google Scholar

Scott-Phillips, T. C., and R. A. Blythe. 2013. “Why is Combinatorial Communication Rare in the Natural World, and Why is Language an Exception to this Trend? Journal of The Royal Society Interface 10 (20130520): 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2013.0520.Search in Google Scholar

Siemund, P. 2003. “Varieties of English from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Intensifiers and Reflexives.” In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43), edited by G. Rohdenburg, and B. Mondorf, 479–506. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110900019.479Search in Google Scholar

Smyth, R. 1994. “Grammatical Determinants of Ambiguous Pronoun Resolution.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23 (3): 197–229, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02139085.Search in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, B., and N. Hernández. 2007. Manual of Information to Accompany the Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects Sampler FRED-S. Freiburg: University of Freiburg Online Publications. Also available at http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/2859.Search in Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, S. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801624Search in Google Scholar

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. 1994. “Standard and Non-Standard Pronominal Usage in English, with Special Reference to the Eighteenth Century.” In Towards a Standard English 1600–1800, edited by D. Stein, and I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 217–42. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Trudgill, P. 2004. Dialects. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

van Hout, R., and P. Muysken. 2016. “Taming Chaos. Chance and Variability in the Language Sciences.” In The Challenge of Chance: A Multidisciplinary Approach from Science and the Humanities, edited by K. Landsman, and E. van Wolde, 249–66. Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_14Search in Google Scholar

Wasow, T., A. Perfors, and D. Beaver. 2005. “The Puzzle of Ambiguity”. In Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe, 265–82. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Weinreich, U., W. Labov, and M. I. Herzog. 1968. “Empirical Foundations for a Theory of Language Change.” In Directions for Historical Linguistics, edited by W. P. Lehmann, and Y. Malkiel, 97–195. Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wiese, H., and H. J. Simon. 2002. “Grammatical Properties of Pronouns and Their Representation: An Exposition.” In Pronouns – Grammar and Representation, edited by H. J. Simon, and H. Wiese, 1–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.52.04wieSearch in Google Scholar

Young, D. J. 1984. Introducing English Grammar. London: Hutchinson.Search in Google Scholar

Yus, F. 2017. “Incongruity-Resolution Cases in Jokes.” Lingua 197: 103–22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.02.002.Search in Google Scholar

Zadeh, L. A. 1978a. “PRUF—A Meaning Representation Language for Natural Languages.” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 10: 395–460, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7373(78)80003-0.Search in Google Scholar

Zadeh, L. A. 1978b. “Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility.” Fuzzy Sets and Systems 1 (1): 3–28, https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(78)90029-5.Search in Google Scholar

Zawiszewski, A., M. Santesteban, and I. Laka. 2016. “Phi-features reloaded: An event-related potential study on person and number agreement processing.” Applied PsychoLinguistics 37 (3): 601–26, https://doi.org/10.1017/s014271641500017x.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Q. G. 1998. “Fuzziness – Vagueness – Generality – Ambiguity.” Journal of Pragmatics 29: 13–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(97)00014-3.Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Search in Google Scholar

Zribi-Hertz, A. 1989. “Anaphor Binding and Narrative Point of View: English Reflexive Pronouns in Sentence and Discourse.” Language 65 (4): 695–727, https://doi.org/10.2307/414931.Search in Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. 1977. “Hierarchies of Person.” Chicago Linguistic Society: 714–33.Search in Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M., and J. M. Sadock. 1975. “Ambiguity Tests and How to Fail Them.” In Syntax and Semantics 4, edited by J. P. Kimball, 1–36. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368828_002Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2021-11-09
Published in Print: 2021-09-27

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston