THE REALIZATION OF THE ANAPHORIC SUBJECTS IN MACEDONIAN

Main Article Content

Eleni Bužarovska
Liliјana Mitkovska

Abstract

This paper presents the results of the investigation into the syntax of anaphoric reference in narrative discourse. The main goal is to determine the principles that govern the realization of anaphoric subjects in Macedonian narratives. The analysis focuses on three types of subjects that code the protagonists in chosen narrative texts: implicit (signaled by verbal personal inflections), pronominal and nominal. The obtained distribution of each subject category is accounted for by positing a cognitive default principle according to which the form of the anaphor is governed by the cognitive status of its referent in listener/reader’s memory. However, this cognitive principle maybe superseded by the effects of other principles which cause deviations in the expected realization of anaphoric subjects. The results of the analysis confirm the main hypothesis thatthe choice of the subject form depends on the interplay of cognitive, semantic, syntactic and discourse-pragmatic principles. The effect of each principle is explained using the data from the analyzed narratives.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Bužarovska, Eleni, and MitkovskaLiliјana. 2018. “THE REALIZATION OF THE ANAPHORIC SUBJECTS IN MACEDONIAN ”. Journal of Contemporary Philology 1 (2), 29–50. https://doi.org/10.37834/JCP1820029b.
Section
Linguistics

References

Ariel, M. (1988). Referring and Accessibility. Journal of Linguistics, 24 (1): 65–87.
Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, W. L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and grounding in discourse, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clerk, S. A. (2000). Participant Reference in Narrative Discourse: a comparison of three methodologies. MA thesis. North Dakota: University of North Dakota.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Language Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Downing, A. and Locke, P. (2006). English Grammar: A University Course. New York: Routledge.
Fox, B. (1987). Anaphora in popular written English narratives. In R. S. Tomlin (ed.). Coherence and grounding in discourse, 156–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity and word-order pragmatics in Ute. In T. Givón (ed.). Topic continuity in discourse, 145–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, T. (2001). Syntax: An introduction–a functional-typological approach. Vol. 2. Rev. ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. and Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive Status and the Form of Referring Expressions in Discourse. Language, 2: 274–307.
Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12 (2): 143–188.
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinsohn, S. H. (2000). Discourse features of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Dallas, Texas: SIL International.
Nichols, Ј. (1985). The Grammatical Marking of Theme in Literary Russian. In M. Flier and R. Brecht (eds). Issues in Russian Morphosyntax, 170–186. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica
Runge, S. E. (2006). A Discourse-Functional Description of Participant Reference in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Doctoral dissertation. Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch.
Travis, E. and Calcoullos R. T. (2012). What do subjects do in discourse? Cognitive, mechanical and constructional factors in variation. Cognitive Linguistics, 23 (4): 711–748.
van Hoek, K. (1997). Anaphora and Conceptual Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
van Vliet, S. (2009). Reference points and dominions in narratives. In V. Evans and S. Pourcel (eds). New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, 441–464. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.