Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:44:44.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Backwards anaphora in discourse context1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Guy Carden
Guy Carden
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most of the time a pronoun follows its antecedent, as in (Ia); less often the pronoun comes first, as in (Ib):

(1) (a) The woman who is to marry Ralph will visit him tomorrow. (Forwards Pronominalization; coreferent elements in italics)

(b) The woman who is to marry him will visit Ralph tomorrow. (Backwards Pronominalization)

In elementary syntax classes we account for these ‘Backwards Pronominalization’ cases by building something like the Langacker (1969)/Ross (1969) structural condition into our Pronominalization rule.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , September 1982 , pp. 361 - 387
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Carden, G. (1977). There-insertion makes a mistake: A global rule and the validation of introspective judgements. LSA Annual Meeting, Chicago.Google Scholar
Carden, G. & Dieterich, T. G. (1981). Introspection, observation, and experiment: An example where experiment pays off. In Asquith, P. D. & Giere, R. N. (eds), PSA 1980, Volume 2. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Cole, P. (1974). Indefiniteness and anaphoricity. Lg 50. 665–674.Google Scholar
Dclisle, G. A. (1973). Discourse and backward pronominalization. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V. A. (1971). The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Lg 47. 27–52.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L. (1968). Coreference and discourse. LSA Annual Meeting, New York.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. LIn 3. 269–320.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1975). Three perspectives in the functional approach to syntax. Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, 276–336. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1969). On pronominalization and the chain of command. In Reibel, D. A. & Schane, S. A. (eds), Modern studies in English. 160–186. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1976). The syntactic domain of anaphora. M.I.T. PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1969). On the cyclic nature of English pronominalization. In Reibel, D. A. & Schane, S. A. (eds), Modern Studies in English. 187–200. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1978). Anaphora in child language. Amherst, Massachusetts: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar