Projection as a determinant of pronominal reference: a study of zero and personal pronouns in Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84
Abstract
It is commonly assumed that the subject of a sentence is the preferred antecedent for a subsequent pronominal or zero anaphor. However, in some contexts the antecedent is instead the object, which may lead to misinterpretation. This paper aims to identify factors that influence the interpretation of referring expressions other than subjecthood, as well as the conditions under which these factors operate. In Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84, the interpretation of referential forms appears to be influenced by projection, that is, the adoption of a character’s point of view. Projection is often signalled by linguistic cues such as a verb of perception in the preceding sentence, expressions of uncertainty or intentionality, a verb in the present tense, and the use of the durative aspect in the sentence itself. Even when the character being projected is not the subject of the preceding sentence, or the referent of a pronominal or zero anaphor is not the character onto whom the narrator projects, referent identification seems to be governed primarily by the point of view of a projected character who holds the status of a main character. The English translations indicate that while certain factors make ambiguous forms more likely to refer to the subject of the previous sentence, point of view also plays a role in referent identification in English.
Twenty-four university students (all native speakers of Japanese and none from the Faculty of Literature) answered questions from the list below. Examples 5 and 7 were given to all participants, whereas each of the other examples was given to ten participants. No participant received both Examples 3 and 6. Several participants left some questions unanswered, presumably because responses were anonymous and not mandatory.
| Arekkusu-wa | Bobu-o | mi-ta. | Ø | Maria-no-koto-o | oboetei- |
| Alex- top(sbj) | Bob-obj | look-at-past | Ø-sbj | Maria-obj | remember- |
| naino | darō- | ka | ? | ||
| not | may-be-pres | q | |||
| ‘Alex looked at Bob. Does Ø remember nothing about Maria?’ | |||||
| Question: Which of Alex and Bob is asking himself about the other? | |||||
| Answer: 90% of participants (9/10) identified the subject of S2 as Bob. | |||||
| Anna-wa | Kyashī-o | mi-ta. | Kanojo-wa | warat-te-i- | ta. |
| Anna-top(sbj) | Cathy-obj | look-at-past | She-top(sbj) | smile-part- | be-past |
| ‘Anna looked at Cathy. She was smiling.’ | |||||
| Question: Which of Anna and Cathy was smiling? | |||||
| Answer: 89% of participants (8/9) identified the subject of S2 as Cathy. | |||||
| Jon-wa | Richārdo-o | mi-ta. | Kare-wa | atama-o | kai-ta. |
| John-top(sbj) | Richard-obj | look-at-past | He-top(sbj) | head-obj | scrach-past |
| ‘John looked at Richard. He scratched his head.’ | |||||
| Question: Which of John and Richard scratched his head? | |||||
| Answer: 78% of participants (7/9) identified the subject of S2 as John. | |||||
| Anna-wa | Kyashī-ni | me-o | yat-te-i-ta. | Kanojyo-wa |
| Anna-top(sbj) | Cathy-obj | glance-obj | give-part-be-past | she-top(sbj) |
| warat-te-i-ta. | ||||
| smile-part-be-past | ||||
| ‘Anna was looking at Cathy. She was smiling.’ | ||||
| Question: Which of Anna and Cathy was smiling? | ||||
| Answer: 70% of participants (7/10) identified the referent of the pronoun as Cathy. | ||||
| Sensei-wa | Kakeru-no-kao-o | mi-ta. | Kare-no-me-ni-wa |
| professor-top(sbj) | Kakeru-gen-face-obj | look-at-past | He-gen-eyes-loc-top |
| imade-wa | tokubetsuna-hikari-ga | at-ta. | |
| now-top | special-light-sbj | be-past | |
| ‘The professor looked at Kakeru. Now, there is special light in his eyes.’ | |||
| Question: Which of the professor and Kakeru had light in his eyes? | |||
| Answer: 100% of participants (22/22) identified the referent of the pronoun as Kakeru. | |||
| Naomi-wa | Makoto-o | mi-ta. | Ø | Ø | yurusu | monoka. |
| Naomi-top(sbj) | Makoto-obj | look-at-past | Øsbj | Øobj | forgive | will-not-pres |
| ‘Naomi looked at Makoto. Ø will not forgive Ø. | ||||||
| Question: Which of Naomi and Makoto might not forgive the other? | ||||||
| Answer: 100% (10/10) participants identified the subject of S2 as Naomi. | ||||||
| John looked at Alex. He would leave tomorrow. |
| Question: Which of John and Alex will leave on the next day? |
| Answer: 68% (15/22) of participants identified the referent of the pronoun in S2 as Alex. |
References
Abrusán, Márta. 2021. The spectrum of perspective shift: Protagonist projection versus free indirect discourse. Linguistics and Philosophy 44. 839–873.10.1007/s10988-020-09300-zSearch in Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1991. The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16. 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(91)90136-l.Search in Google Scholar
Bal, Mieke. 1985. Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative, trans. Christine van Boheemen. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chambers, Craig G. & Ron Smyth. 1998. Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of centering theory. Journal of Memory and Language 39(4). 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2575.Search in Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 1987. Aspect, foregrounding and point of view. Text 7(4). 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1987.7.4.363.Search in Google Scholar
Emmott, Catherine. 1997. Narrative comprehension: A discourse perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198236498.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Fernandez-Quintanilla, Carolina & Fransina Stradling. 2023. Introduction: Stylistic approaches to narrative empathy. Journal of Literary Semantics 52(2). 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2023-2008.Search in Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara J., Aravind K. Joshi & Scott Weinstein. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics 21(2). 203–225.10.21236/ADA324949Search in Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. & Beatrice Primus. 2015. Prominence beyond prosody – A first approximation. In Amedeo De Dominicis (ed.), pS-prominenceS: Prominences in linguistics. Proceedings of the International Conference ‘pS-prominenceS: Prominences in Linguistics’, Viterbo, Italy, 38–51. Viterbo: DISUCOM Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hirose, Yukio & Yoko Hasegawa. 2010. Nihongo kara mita nihonjin – Shutaisei-no gengogaku (The Japanese seen through the Japanese language: A linguistics of subjectivity). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Search in Google Scholar
Jiang, Yuchen Eleanor, Ryan Cotterell & Mrinmaya Sachan. 2022. Investigating the role of centering theory in the context of neural coreference resolution systems. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.14678.Search in Google Scholar
Kameyama, Megumi. 1985. Zero anaphora: The case of Japanese. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Hannah Rohde. 2013. A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics 39(1-2). 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2013-0001.Search in Google Scholar
Kudo, Mayumi. 2020. Tense and aspect in discourse. In Wesley Jacobsen & Yukinori Takubo (eds.), Handbook of Japanese semantics and pragmatics, 423–448. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9781614512073-008Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Etsuko Kaburaki. 1977. Empathy and syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 8(4). 627–672.Search in Google Scholar
Kuroda, Sige-Yuki. 1972. Where epistemology, style, and grammar meet: A case study from Japanese. In Paul Kiparsky & Stephen Anderson (eds.), Festschrift for Morris Halle, 377–391. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Mick Short. 2007. Style in fiction, 2nd edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar
Loveday, Leo. 1986. Explorations in Japanese sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pb.vii.1Search in Google Scholar
Maier, Emar. 2014. Language shifts in free indirect discourse. Journal of Literary Semantics 43(2). 143–167. https://doi.org/10.1515/jls-2014-0010.Search in Google Scholar
Morrow, Daniel G. 1985. Prominent characters and events organize narrative understanding. Journal of Memory and Language 24. 304–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596x(85)90030-0.Search in Google Scholar
Murakami, Haruki. 2009a. 1Q84. Book 1. Tokyo: Shinchosha.Search in Google Scholar
Murakami, Haruki. 2009b. 1Q84. Book 2. Tokyo: Shinchosha.Search in Google Scholar
Murakami, Haruki. 2010. 1Q84. Book 3. Tokyo: Shinchosha.Search in Google Scholar
Murakami, Haruki. 2013. 1Q84 (Vintage international edition), trans. Jay Rubin & Philip Gabriel. New York: Vintage Books.Search in Google Scholar
Palmer, Alan. 2004. Fictional minds. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Search in Google Scholar
Poesio, Massimo, Juntao Yu, Silviu Paun, Abdulrahman Aloriani, Pengcheng Lu, Jonasch Haber & Derya Cokal. 2023. Computational models of anaphora. Annual Reviews of Linguistics 9. 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-111653.Search in Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko & Wenjiang Yang. 2018. Evidentiality in Japanese. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidentiality, 709–724. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.013.34Search in Google Scholar
Sadanobu, Toshiyuki. 2014. ‘Hakken’ to ‘miratibu’ no aida (Between discovery and mirative). In Toshiyuki Sadanobu (ed.), Nihongogaku to tsugengotekikenkyu tono taiwa (A dialogue between Japanese linguistics and cross-linguistic studies), 107–126. Tokyo: Kuroshio.Search in Google Scholar
Shoji, Shinichi & Jesse Sokolovsky. 2023. Empathy effects on antecedent salience and anaphor processing in Japanese. Psycholinguistics 34(2). 184–220. https://doi.org/10.31470/2309-1797-2023-34-2-184-220.Search in Google Scholar
Sotirova, Violeta. 2004. Connectives in free indirect style: Continuity or shift? Language and Literature 13(3). 216–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004044872.Search in Google Scholar
Tetreault, Joel R. 2001. A corpus-based evaluation of centering and pronoun resolution. Computational Linguistics 27(4). 507–520. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120101753342644.Search in Google Scholar
Trowell, Haydn. 2021. Tense alternation in Japanese literature: Translating free indirect discourse and focalization in Kashimada Maki’s Meido meguri. Japanese Language and Literature 55(2). 447–470. https://doi.org/10.5195/jll.2021.190.Search in Google Scholar
Walker, Marilyn, Masayo Iida & Sharon Cote. 1994. Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics 20(2). 193–231.Search in Google Scholar
© 2026 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Challenging novels: developing a checklist of stylistic markers of difficulty in prose fiction
- Projection as a determinant of pronominal reference: a study of zero and personal pronouns in Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84
- To de-empathise or not, that is the question: understanding de-empathy in Chinese television literature
- Book Reviews
- Graphic criticism. Semantics, neurology and cultural transmission – a study of 100 classic Anglophone novels
- Neurocomputational poetics: how the brain processes verbal art
- Narrative and its nonevents. The unwritten plots that shaped Victorian Realism
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Articles
- Challenging novels: developing a checklist of stylistic markers of difficulty in prose fiction
- Projection as a determinant of pronominal reference: a study of zero and personal pronouns in Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84
- To de-empathise or not, that is the question: understanding de-empathy in Chinese television literature
- Book Reviews
- Graphic criticism. Semantics, neurology and cultural transmission – a study of 100 classic Anglophone novels
- Neurocomputational poetics: how the brain processes verbal art
- Narrative and its nonevents. The unwritten plots that shaped Victorian Realism
