Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T11:19:26.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpreting anaphoric expressions: a cognitive versus a pragmatic approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Mira Ariel
Mira Ariel
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Levinson (1985, 1987a & b, 1991) and Ariel (1985a & b, 1987, 1988a & b, 1990a, 1991) have each proposed to anchor discourse and sentential anaphora within a more general theory of communication. Levinson chose a general, extra-linguistic pragmatic theory. He uses Grice's Quantity maxim to account for the distribution of zeros, reflexives, pronouns and lexical NPs, claiming that coreferent readings are preferred, unless a disjoint reading is implicated (by the revised Gricean maxims he offers). I have proposed a specifically linguistic, cognitive theory, whereby speakers guide addressees' retrievals of mental representations corresponding to all definite NPs (coreferent as well as disjoint) by signalling to them the degree of Accessibility associated with the intended mental entity in their memory. An examination of actual data reveals that Levinson's predictions regarding definite NP interpretations are often not borne out. In addition, his proposals cannot account for many anaphoric patterns actually found in natural discourse. Accessibility theory, it is argued, can account for both types of problematic data.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , March 1994 , pp. 3 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Ariel, M. (1985a). How, when and where to refer? Paper delivered at the International Pragmatics Conference, Viareggio.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1985b). Givenness marking. PhD dissertation, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1987). The grammaticalization of accessibility. Ms., Tel-Aviv University. (A much abridged version of it appears as Part II of Ariel (1990a).)Google Scholar
Ariel, , (1988a). Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 24. 65–87.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1988b). The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Paper delivered at the Third Cognitive Symposium at Tel-Aviv University: Text and Context. Reprinted as Ariel (1991)Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990a). Accessing NP antecedents (Croom Helm Linguistics Series). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1990b). Pragmatics: in the grammar and in the wastebasket. Paper delivered at the International Pragmatics Conference, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1991). The function of accessibility in a theory of grammar. Journal of Pragmatics 16. 141–161.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (to appear). Referring expressions and the +/–coreference distinction. In Fretheim, T. & Gundel, J. K. (eds.) Reference and referent accessibility (tentative title). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Kintch, W., Fletcher, C. R. & Giuliani, V. (1980). Recognition memory for surface forms in dialogue: explicit vs. anaphoric reference. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.) 41–49.Google Scholar
Bentivoglio, P. (1983). Topic continuity and discontinuity in discourse: a study of spoken Latin-American Spanish. In Givón, T. (ed.). 255–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1979). Pronouns in discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.). 289–308.Google Scholar
Brennan, S. E., Friedman, M. W. & Pollard, C. J. (1987). A centering approach to pronouns. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 155–162.Google Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. (1973). In defence of empirical psychology. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (1983). Topic continuity in written English narrative. In Givón, T. (ed.). 313–342.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (ed.) (1980). The pear stories, vol. III. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.) Advances in discourse processes. Norwood: Ablex.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: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1985). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe, W. L. (ed.). 127–202.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Sengul, C. J. (1979). In search of references for nouns and pronouns. Memory and Cognition 7. 35–41.Google Scholar
Cooreman, A. (1983). Topic continuity and the voicing system of an ergative language: Chamorro. In Givon, T. (ed.). 425–490.Google Scholar
Doron, E. (1982). On the syntax and semantics of resumptive pronouns. Texas Linguistic Forum 19. 1–48.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1980). Beyond definiteness: The trace of identity in discourse. In Chafe, W. L. (ed.). 203–74.Google Scholar
Eid, M. (1983). On the communicative function of subject pronouns in Arabic. Journal of Linguistics 19. 287–303.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. M. (1977). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Faltz, L. M. (1985). Reflexivization: a study in universal syntax. Revised version of Faltz (1977). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Fanner, A. & Harnish, M. (1987). Communicative reference with pronouns. In Verschueren, J. & Papi, M. (eds.). 547–566.Google Scholar
Fox, A. (1983). Topic continuity in Biblical Hebrew narrative. In Givón, T. (ed.). 215–254.Google Scholar
Fox, B. A. (1987). Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garnham, A. J. & Oakhill, J. (1985). On-line resolution of anaphoric pronouns: effects of inference making and verb semantics. British Journal of Psychology 76. 385–393.Google Scholar
Garrod, S. C. & Sanford, A. J. (1982). The mental representation of discourse in a focused memory system: implications for the interpretation of anaphoric noun phrases. Journal of Semantics 1. 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvey, C., Caramazza, A. & Yates, J. (1974-1975). Factors influencing assignment of pronoun antecedents. Cognition 3. 227–243.Google Scholar
Gasser, M. (1983). Topic continuity in written Amharic narrative. In Givón, T. (ed.). 95–140.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. J. M. (1979). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1988). On the informativeness requirement. Journal of Pragmatics 12.5/6. Special issue edited by Kasher, A.Cognitive aspects of language use. 547–566.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983a). Topic continuity in discourse: An introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.). 1–42.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983b). Topic continuity and word order pragmatics in Ute. In Givón, T. (ed.). 141–214.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1983c). Topic continuity in spoken English. In Givón, T. (ed.). 343–364.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) (1979). Syntax and semantics 12: discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) (1983d). Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) Syntax and semantics 3: speech acts. New York: Academic Press. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. (1981). Focussing and description in natural language dialogues. In Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L. & Sag, I. A. (eds.) Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 84–105.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J., Joshi, A. K. & Weinstein, S. (1987). Towards a computational theory of discourse interpretation. Ms.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1980). Zero anaphora in Russian: a case of topic prominence. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.). 139–146.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K., Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1984). Remarks on adverbial clauses and definite NP anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 15. 712–715.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Sonder Forschungberech 99 Linguistik Universitat Konstanz.Google Scholar
Henry, A. (1986). Subject-object asymmetry in Chinese. Paper delivered at the Autumn Meeting of the Linguistic Association of Great Britain, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1983). Topic continuity in Japanese. In Givón, T. (ed.). 43–95.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. R. (1976). Pronoun resolution. Research report 76–7, Department of Computer Sciences, City College, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1972). On the semantic properties of the logical operators in English. Ms., I.U.L.C.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1985). Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q- and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form and use in context. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 11–42.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. (1991). A neo-Gricean pragmatic theory of anaphora. Journal of Linguistics 27. 301–335.Google Scholar
Jaggar, P. (1983). Some dimensions of topic-NP continuity in Hausa narrative. In Givón, T. (ed.). 365–424.Google Scholar
Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds.) (1980). Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1987). Functional syntax. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Levinsohn, S. (1978). Participant reference in Inga narrative discourse. In Hinds, J. (ed.) Anaphora in discourse. Alberta: Linguistic Research. 69–135.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1985). Minimization and conversational inference. Paper delivered at the International Pragmatics Conference, Viareggio. Reprinted as Levinson (1987a).Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987a). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.). 61–129.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987b). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. Journal of Linguistics 23. 379–434.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1991). Pragmatic reduction of the binding conditions revisited. Journal of Linguistics 27. 107–161.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1979). Third-person pronouns and zero anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.). 311–335.Google Scholar
Linde, C. (1979). Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.). 337–354Google Scholar
Maling, J. (1984). Non-clause-bounded reflexives in Modern Icelandic. Linguistics and Philosophy 7. 211–241.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. & Komisarjevsky, Tyler L. K. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: the establishment and maintenance of reference. In Jarvella, R. & Klein, E. (eds.) Speech, place and action: studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons. 339–378.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.) Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–255.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27. 53–94.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Worcester: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657–720.Google Scholar
Rochester, S. R. & Martin, J. R. (1977). The art of referring: the speaker's use of noun phrases to instruct the listener. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.) Discourse production and comprehension: discourse processes: advances in research and theory, vol. 1. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. 245–269.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1974). Read at your own risk: syntactic and semantic horrors you can find in your-medicine chest. In La Galy, M. W., Fox, R. A. & Bruck, A. (eds.) Papers from the Tenth Chicago Linguistic Society Regional Meeting. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 599–607.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Schiffman, R. J. (1984). The two nominal anaphors it and that. In Drogo, J., Mishra, V. & Testen, D. (eds.) Papers from the Twentieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 344–357.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1983). Structural invariance of symmetry in syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Thavenius, C. (1982). Exophora in English conversation. In Enkvist, N. E. (ed.) Impromptu speech: a symposium. Abo: Akademi.Google Scholar
Toole, J. (1992). Local or global: an investigation of the effect of genre on referential choice. MA dissertation, Monash University.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.) (1987). The pragmatic perspectives: proceedings of the International Pragmatics Conference. Viareggio, 1985. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1981). New, current and displaced entity reference. Lingua 55, 41–52.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1989). Anaphor binding and narrative point of view: English reflexive pronouns in sentence and discourse. Language 65. 695–727.Google Scholar