Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:05:59.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of Binding and Control phenomena1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stephen C. Levinson
Stephen C. Levinson
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The properties of gaps are intrinsically significant in that the language learner can confront little direct evidence bearing on them, so that it is reasonable to assume that they reflect deeper principles of UG, the biologically determined endowment that will be the primary concern for those interested more in the nature of the human mind than in the arrangement of data in the environment (Chomsky, 1982:19. Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , September 1987 , pp. 379 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Andrews, A. (1985). The major functions of the noun phrase. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1: Clause structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 62–154.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. (1975). Presupposition: a semantico-pragmatic account. Pragmatics Microfiche 1.4. D13-G14.Google Scholar
Atlas, J. D. & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 1–61.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. (1964). Language and information. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Y. & Carnap, R. (1952). An outline of a theory of semantic information. MIT Tech. Report 247. Reprinted in Bar-Hillel, 1964: 221–274.Google Scholar
Blake, B. (1983). Structure and word order in Kalkatungu: the anatomy of a flat language. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3. 143–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1979). Pronouns in discourse. In Givon, T. (ed.) Discourse and syntax. Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12. 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1983). On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charniak, E. (1972). Towards a model of children's story comprehension. MIT AI Lab Monographs, No. 226.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981): Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. & Haviland, S. (1977). Comprehension and the given-new contract. In Freedle, R. (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds) (1975). Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1985).Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1977). A grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Lg 55. 59–138.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1980). The languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where have all the adjectives gone? Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1980). Comments on the paper by Bach and Partee. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. (eds.), Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora, Chicago Linguistic Society. 29–40.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1980). Pronouns. LIn 11. 337–62.Google Scholar
Fanner, A. (1984). Modularity in syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. & Harnish, M. (1987). Communicative reference with pronouns. In Papi, M., & Verscheuren, J.The pragmatic perspective: proceedings of the international pragmatics conference, Viareggio, 1985. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1983). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E. & Pullum, G. (1983). Order, concord and constituency. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Geis, M. & Zwicky, A. (1971). On invited inferences. LIn 2. 561–66.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole & Morgan (eds). 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax: iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. (1983). Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Languages and Linguistic Theory 1. 5–48.Google Scholar
Harnish, R. M. (1976). Logical form and implicature. In Bever, T., Katz, J. & Langendoen, D. T. (eds) An integrated theory of linguistic ability. New York: T. Y. Crowell.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (1979a). Guugu Yimidhirr. In Blake, B. & Dixon, R. M. W., Handbook of Australian languages Vol I. Canberra: ANU Press. 27–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 26–180.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (1979b). How to talk to your brother-in-law in Guugu Yimidhirr. In Shopen, T., Languages and their speakers. Cambridge, Mass: Winthrop. 161–239.Google Scholar
Haviland, J. B. (n.d.) Complex referential gestures in Guugu Yimidhirr. Unpublished MS. ANU and Stanford Centre for the Advanced study of the Behavioural Sciences.Google Scholar
Heath, J. (1986). Syntactic and lexical aspects of nonconfigurationality in Nunggubuyu (Australia). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. 375–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higginbotham, J. (1983). Logical form, binding and nominals. LIn 14. 395–420.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Mimeo, I.U.L.C.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.).Google Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1984). Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1924). The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1975). Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1984). Anaphora, the compositionality requirement and the semantics-pragmatics distinction. NELS 14.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (1985). Pragmatics, anaphora and logical form. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (to appear) Grammar and conversational principles. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge Survey. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. (forthcoming) Logical form: the grammar cognition interface.Google Scholar
Koster, J. & May, R. (1982). On the constituency of infinitives. Lg 58. 116–143.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. & Munro, P. (1975). Passives and their meaning. Lg 51. 789–830.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Papi, M. & Verscheuren, J. (eds.) The pragmatic perspective: Proceedings of the International Pragmatics Conference. Viareggio, 1985. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lichtenberk, F. (1985). Multiple uses of reciprocal constructions. Australian Journal of Linguistics 5. 19–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. (1983). Functional and anaphoric control. LIn 14. 641–74.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London. Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1981). Transformational syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van & Williams, E. (1986). Introduction to the theory of grammar. Cambridge. Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington. 15–21.Google Scholar
Schirffrin, D. (ed.) (1985). Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1985). On the pragmatic poetry of prose: parallelism, repetition, and cohesive structure in the time course of dyadic conversation. In Schiffrin (1985). 181–99.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. & Bresnan, J. (1983). Control and obviation in Warlpiri. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 49–65.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (ed.) (1982). Mutual knowledge. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. V., (ed.). 61–85.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. & Sperber, D. (1981). On Grice's theory of conversation. In Werth, P. (ed.), Conversation and discourse. London: Croom Helm 155–178.Google Scholar
Xu, L. (1986). Free empty category. LIn 17. 75–93.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar