Abstract
It is known that bare NPs can be interpreted as an indefinite description or a definite description in Japanese. A question arises as to whether a bare NP in Japanese can always obtain an intended anaphoric definite reading from the previous context. The present work attempts to answer this question. More specifically, we will explore the occurrences and nonoccurrences of anaphoric definite bare NPs in terms of the Givenness Hierarchy of Gundel et al. (1993). We will first discuss the advantages of adopting the Givenness Hierarchy to the studies of occurrences of bare NPs and show how the Givenness Hierarchy accounts for cases in which the use of a demonstrative determiner for anaphoric definite NPs is either optional or infelicitous. We will then examine apparent counterexamples for the Givenness Hierarchy, namely cases in which a bare NP cannot refer to an individual that is introduced in the previous context. We will argue that these apparent counterexamples are due to competing readings arising from various independent sources and demonstrative determiners are used to force intended anaphoric definite readings, as argued in Gundel (2010) and Gundel et al. (2012).
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Tomoyuki Yoshida, Wako Tawa, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on the earlier versions of this article. Needless to say, all shortcomings are mine.
References
Carlson, Gregory N.1977. Reference to kinds in English. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace.1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Charles N.Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–29. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Susan E.Haviland.1977. Comprehension and the given-new contrast. In RoyFreedle (ed.), Discourse processes: advances in research and theory, vol. 1: Discourse production and comprehension, 1–40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel & NomiErteshik-Shir.2002. Topic, focus, and the interpretation of bare plurals. Natural Language Semantics10. 125–165.Search in Google Scholar
Evans, Gareth.1977. Pronouns, quantifiers, and relative clauses, part 1. Canadian Journal of Philosophy7. 467–536.10.1080/00455091.1977.10717030Search in Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. 111–138. Seoul: Hanshin.Search in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.1996. Relevance theory meets the Givenness Hierarchy. In ThorsteinFretheim & Jeanette K.Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility. 141–153. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.38.08gunSearch in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K.2010. Reference and accessibility from a Givenness Hierarchy prospective. International Review of Pragmatics2. 148–168.10.1163/187731010X528322Search in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., MamadouBassena, BryanGordon, LindaHumnick & AmelKhalfaoui.2010. Testing predictions of the givenness hierarchy framework: A crosslinguistic investigation. Journal of Pragmatics42. 1770–1785.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.010Search in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., NancyHedberg & RonZacharski.1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language69(2). 274–307.10.2307/416535Search in Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., NancyHedberg & RonZacharski2012. Underspecification of cognitive status in reference production: Some empirical predictions. Topics in Cognitive Science4. 249–268.10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01184.xSearch in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & RuqaiyaHasan.1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Haviland, Susan E. & Herbert H.Clark.1974. What’s new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior13. 512–521.10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80003-4Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John.1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Search in Google Scholar
Heim, Irene.1982. The semantics of definite and indefinite NP’s. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline.2008. Japanese –wa, -ga, and information structure. In ShigeruMiyagawa & MamoruSaito (eds.). The Oxford handbook of Japanese linguistics. 54–83. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195307344.013.0003Search in Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime.1991. Kare [He]. In CarolGeorgopoulos & RobertaIshihara (eds.). Interdisciplinary approach to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, 287–304. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-3818-5_15Search in Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime.1997. Formal dependency, organization of grammar, and Japanese demonstratives. Japanese/Korean Linguistics7. 649–677.Search in Google Scholar
Hoji, Hajime, SatoshiKinsui, YukinoriTakubo & AyuimUeyama2003. The demonstratives in modern Japanese. In Yen-huiAudrey Li & AndrewSimpson (eds.), Functional structure(s), form and interpretation perspectives from East Asian languages. London: Routledge Curzon.Search in Google Scholar
Iori, Isao.2007. Nihongo-ni okeru text-no kesshokusei-no kenkyu. [Studies on Cohesion of Text in Japanese]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Search in Google Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi.2002. Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Search in Google Scholar
Kinsui, Satoshi & YukinoriTakubo.1992. Shijishi [Demonstratives]. Tokyo: Hitsuji shobo.Search in Google Scholar
Kubo, Minori.1988. On the realization of definiteness. Seattle, WA: University of Washington MA thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu.1973. Structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kuroda, Shigeyuki.1992. Judgment forms and sentence forms. In Japanese syntax and semantics collected papers. 13–77. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-011-2789-9_2Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Kund.1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar
Nastume, Soseki1957. Kokoro, transl. Edwin McClellan. Chicago, IL: Gateway Editions.Search in Google Scholar
Nastume, Soseki.1971. Kokoro. Tokyo: Kodansha.Search in Google Scholar
Nemoto, Naoko.2012. Hei-bunmyaku shitei shijishi-no umu-ni tsuite [Notes on the existence of non-deictic referential demonstrative determiners in Japanese]. In Proceedings of 19th Princeton Japanese Pedagogy Forum, 324–332. Princeton, NJ: Dept. of East Asian Studies, Princeton University.Search in Google Scholar
Noguchi, Toru.1997. Two types of pronouns and variable binding. Language73(4). 770–797.10.1353/lan.1997.0021Search in Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen.1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In PeterCole (ed.), Radical pragmatics. 223–256. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Sanford, Anthony J. & Simon C. Garrod. 1981. Understanding written language: Explorations of comprehension beyond the sentence. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Tawa, Wako.1993. Interpretation of definiteness: With special reference to Japanese. Word44(3). 379–396.10.1080/00437956.1993.11435908Search in Google Scholar
Tawa, Wako.1999. Definiteness and bare noun phrases in Japanese. In MasatakeMuraki & EnochIwamoto (eds.), Linguistics: In search of the human mind: A festschrift for Kazuko Inoue, 652–673. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Search in Google Scholar
Tsutsui, Michio.1990. A study of demonstrative adjectives before anaphoric nouns in Japanese. In OsamuKamada & Wesley M.Jacobsen (eds.), On Japanese and how to teach it: In honor of Seiichi Makino. 121–135. Tokyo: The Japan Times.Search in Google Scholar
Yamanashi, Masaaki.1992. Suiron-to shoo [Inferences and anaphoric relation]Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Search in Google Scholar
Yasutake, Tomoko.2007. Gengo gensho-to kotoba-no mekanizumu [Language phenomena and language mechanisms] Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Search in Google Scholar
Yoshida, Keiko.2008. Bare nouns and telicity in Japanese. In SusanRothstein (ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect, 421–439. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.110.17yosSearch in Google Scholar
©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Propositional null objects in Spanish and the completeness of the proposition
- Apparent filler–gap mismatches in Welsh
- The case for external sentential negation: Evidence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
- The linguistic encoding of space in child Mandarin: A corpus-based study
- The acquisition of tense and aspect in a morphology-sensitive framework: Data from Italian and Austrian-German children
- Telling a story with (almost) no tenses: The structure of written narrative in Burmese
- On the occurrences of anaphoric bare NPs in Japanese
- Reply
- Problems of prosodic parallelism: A reply to Wiese and Speyer (2015)
- Publications received between 2 June 2014 and 1 June 2015
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Propositional null objects in Spanish and the completeness of the proposition
- Apparent filler–gap mismatches in Welsh
- The case for external sentential negation: Evidence from Jewish Babylonian Aramaic
- The linguistic encoding of space in child Mandarin: A corpus-based study
- The acquisition of tense and aspect in a morphology-sensitive framework: Data from Italian and Austrian-German children
- Telling a story with (almost) no tenses: The structure of written narrative in Burmese
- On the occurrences of anaphoric bare NPs in Japanese
- Reply
- Problems of prosodic parallelism: A reply to Wiese and Speyer (2015)
- Publications received between 2 June 2014 and 1 June 2015