Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistics

An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences

Editor-in-Chief: Gast, Volker


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.066

CiteScore 2018: 0.97

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.384
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.409

Online
ISSN
1613-396X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 54, Issue 6

Issues

Grammatical and pragmatic factors in the interpretation of Japanese null and overt pronouns

Mieko Ueno
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Cognitive Science, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093–0515, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Andrew Kehler
Published Online: 2016-11-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0027

Abstract

Pronoun interpretation in English has been demonstrated to be sensitive to an interaction between grammatical and pragmatically driven factors. This study investigated the interpretation of pronouns in Japanese, which has both null and overt forms. Thirty-two native speakers of Japanese per experiment participated in passage completion studies with transfer-of-possession contexts (Experiment 1) or implicit causality contexts (Experiment 2), varying prompt type, aspect, and topic/nominative-marking of the previous subject. Two judges annotated reference and coherence relations in the completed passages. Japanese overt pronouns were revealed to pattern closely with English overt pronouns in their sensitivity to pragmatic factors, whereas null pronouns showed a mixed resilience to pragmatic factors. Topic-marking only showed marginal effects on reference in limited contexts. Despite different degrees of sensitivity to pragmatic factors, Japanese null and overt pronouns were both mostly subject-biased, casting doubt on the existence of a division of labor between the two forms. There was also an intrinsic link between reference and coherence relations throughout the experiments. We discuss the overall results in terms of language specificity and universality, the latter of which includes interactions between grammatical and pragmatic factors and the importance of discourse coherence in the interpretation of various pronouns across languages.

Keywords: Japanese pronoun interpretation; discourse processing; crosslinguistic language processing

References

  • Alonso-Ovalle, Luis, Susana Fernández-Solera, Lyn Frazier & Charles Clifton. 2002. Null vs. overt pronouns and the topic-focus articulation in Spanish. Rivista di Linguistica 14(2). 1–19.Google Scholar

  • Amano, Nariaki & Masahisa Kondo. 2000. NTT database series nihongo-no goikokusei [NTT database series lexical properties of Japanese], vol. 7. Tokyo: Sanseido.

  • Arnold, Jennifer E. 2001. The effects of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference. Discourse Processes 31. 137–162.Google Scholar

  • Bentivoglio, Paola. 1992. Linguistic correlations between subjects of one-argument verbs and subjects of more-than-one-argument verbs in spoken Spanish. In Paul Hirschbühler & Konrad Koerner (eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: 20th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XX), Ottawa, 10–14 April 1990, 11–24. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Brown-Schmidt, Sarah, Donna. K. Byron & Michael Tanenhaus. 2005. Beyond salience: Interpretation of personal and demonstrative pronouns. Journal of Memory and Language 53. 292–313.Google Scholar

  • Caramazza, Alfonso, Ellen Grober & Catherine Garvey. 1977. Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16. 601–609.Google Scholar

  • Carminati, Maria N. 2002. The processing of Italian subject pronouns. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts at Amherst dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Christianson, Kiel & Hee Youn Cho. 2009. Interpreting null pronouns (pro) in isolated sentences. Lingua 119. 989–1008.Google Scholar

  • Crawley, Rosalind A., Rosemary J. Stevenson & David Kleinman. 1990. The use of heuristic strategies in the interpretation of pronoun. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 4. 245–264.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–619.Google Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–855.Google Scholar

  • Fernandez-Salgueiro, Gerardo, Lillian Chen, Richard Lewis & Samuel Epstein. 2007. The when and how of positing null subjects (pro): The timing and surprising interaction of syntactic and semantic constraints. Poster presented at the 20th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. San Diego, CA.

  • Ferstl, Evelyn C., Alan Garnham & Christina Manouilidou. 2011. Implicit causality bias in English: A corpus of 300 verbs. Behavior Research Methods 43. 124–135.Google Scholar

  • Fiengo, Robert & Makiko Haruna. 1987. Parameters in binding theory–Some suggestions based on an analysis of Japanese. In Takashi Imai & Mamoru Saito (eds.), Issues in Japanese linguistics, 107–128. Dordrecht: Foris Publication.Google Scholar

  • Filiaci, Francesca, Antonella Sorace & Manuel Carreiras. 2014. Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 29. 825–843.Google Scholar

  • Fry, John. 2003. Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese conversation. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Garvey, Catherine & Alfonso Caramazza. 1974. Implicit causality in verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 459–464.Google Scholar

  • Gernsbacher, Morton A. & David J. Hargreaves. 1988. Accessing sentence participants: The advantage of first mention. Journal of Memory and Language 27. 699–717.Google Scholar

  • Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58, New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Gundel, Jeanette K., Nancy Hedberg & Ron Zacharski. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.Google Scholar

  • Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Understood subjects in English diaries: On the relevance of theoretical syntax for the study of register variation. Multilingua 9. 157–199.Google Scholar

  • Hobbs, Jerry R. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science 3. 67–90.Google Scholar

  • Hobbs, Jerry R. 1990. Literature and cognition: CSLI lecture notes 21. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Hoji, Hajime. 1990. On the so-called overt pronouns in Japanese and Korean. In Eung-Jin Baek (ed.), Papers from the seventh international conference on Korean linguistics, 61–78. Osaka, Japan: International Circle of Korean Linguistics & Osaka University of Economics and Law.Google Scholar

  • Ishiyama, Osamu. 2008. Diachronic perspectives on personal pronouns in Japanese. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Kaiser, Elsi & John Trueswell. 2008. Interpreting pronouns and demonstratives in Finnish: Evidence for a form-specific approach to reference resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 23. 708–748.Google Scholar

  • Kameyama, Megumi. 1985. Zero anaphora: The case of Japanese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Kehler, Andrew. 2002. Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Kehler, Andrew, Laura Kertz, Hannah Rohde & Jeff Elman. 2008. Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics 25. 1–44.Google Scholar

  • Kehler, Andrew & Hannah Rohde. 2013. A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics 39. 1–37.Google Scholar

  • Kim, Kitaek, Theres Grüter & Amy J. Schafer. 2014. Effects of morphological and prosodic focus cues on topic maintenance in Korean. Poster presented at the 27th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Columbus, OH.

  • Kim, Lucy Kyoungsook & Elsi Kaiser. 2009. Effects of honorific agreement on null subject interpretation in Korean. In Proceedings of 2009 Seoul International Conference on Linguistic Interfaces. Seoul: Yonsei University.

  • Kim, Kitaek, Grüter Theres & Amy J. Schafer. 2013. Effects of event-structure and topic/focus-marking on pronoun reference in Korean. Poster presented at the 26th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Columbia, SC.

  • Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1965. Generative grammatical studies in the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Kwon, Nayoung & Maria Polinsky. 2011. Anaphoric inventories and bound variable interpretation: Evidence from Korean. Poster presented at the 24th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Stanford University, CA.

  • Kwon, Nayoung & Patrick Sturt. 2013. Null pronominal (pro) resolution in Korean, a discourse-oriented language. Language and Cognitive Processes 28. 377–387.Google Scholar

  • Liversedge, Simon P. & Roger P. G. van Gompel. n.d. Resolving anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns. Unpublished ms.

  • Martin, Samuel E. 1975. A reference grammar of Japanese. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

  • Mazuka, Reiko. 1991. Processing of empty categories in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 20. 215–232.Google Scholar

  • McKoon, Gail, Steven B. Greene & Roger Raticliff. 1993. Discourse models, pronoun resolution, and implicit causality of verbs. Journal of Experimental Psychology 19. 1040–1052.Google Scholar

  • Nariyama, Shigeko. 2003. Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Root null subjects and early null subjects. In Teun Hoekstra & Bonnie Schwartz (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 151–176. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Rohde, Hannah. 2008. Coherence driven effects in sentence and discourse processing. San Diego, CA: University of California, San Diego doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Rohde, Hannah & Andrew Kehler. 2008. The bidirectional influence between coherence establishment and pronoun interpretation. Poster presented at the 21st Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Chapel Hill, NC.

  • Rohde, Hannah, Andrew Kehler & Jeff Elman. 2006. Event structure and discourse coherence biases in pronoun interpretation. In Ron Sun & Noami Miyake (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society, 697–702. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

  • Smyth, Ron. 1994. Grammatical determinants of ambiguous pronoun resolution. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23. 197–229.Google Scholar

  • Stevenson, Rosemary J., Rosalind A. Crawley & David Kleinman. 1994. Thematic roles, focusing and the representation of events. Language and Cognitive Processes 9. 519–548.Google Scholar

  • Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ueno, Mieko & Andrew Kehler. 2010. The interpretation of null and overt pronouns in Japanese: Grammatical and pragmatic factors. In Stellan Ohlsson & Richard Catrambone (eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting of the cognitive science society, 2057–2062. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

  • Ueno, Mieko & Maria Polinsky. 2009. Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO-OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics 45. 675–710.Google Scholar

  • Walker, Marilyn, Masayo Iida & Sharon Cote. 1994. Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics 20. 193–232.Google Scholar

  • Yang, Chin Lung, Peter C. Gordon, Randall Hendrick & Chih Wei Hue. 2003. Constraining the comprehension of pronominal expressions in Chinese. Cognition 86. 283–315.Google Scholar

  • Yang, Chin Lung, Peter C. Gordon, Randall Hendrick & Jei Tun Wu. 1999. Comprehension of referring expressions in Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes 14. 715–743.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2016-11-08

Published in Print: 2016-11-01


This research was supported by grant number 3R01HD022614-22S1 from the NICHD and a grant from the UCSD Academic Senate.


Citation Information: Linguistics, Volume 54, Issue 6, Pages 1165–1221, ISSN (Online) 1613-396X, ISSN (Print) 0024-3949, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0027.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in