Advertisement

Center and Periphery in the Grammar of Anaphora

  • Tanya Reinhart
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 2)

Abstract

In recent years serious attempts have been made to subject the anaphora, or ‘binding’, conditions proposed in theoretical studies to an empirical investigation using either adult anaphora or language acquisition data. Many of these studies concentrated mainly on problems of definite NP coreference. This reflects a prevailing assumption in theoretical studies of anaphora thajt the core issues in the case of pronominal anaphora (i.e. anaphora involving pronouns) are those of intended-coreference with definite NP’s. While an alternative interpretation of pronouns as bound variables is known to exist, it is assumed to be a restricted LF phenomenon.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, E. and B. Partee: 1980, ‘Anaphora and semantic structure’, in J. Kreiman and A. Ojeda (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 1 - 29.Google Scholar
  2. Berwick, R. and K. Wexler: to appear, ‘Parsing efficiency, binding, c-command and learnability’, in B. Lust (ed.), Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora, Volume 2, Applying the Constraints, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  3. Bickerton, D.: 1975, ‘Some assertions about presuppositions about pronominalization’, in R. E. Grossman, L. J. San, and T. Vance (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 24 - 35.Google Scholar
  4. Biller-Lappin, Y.: 1983, ‘Backward anaphora in discourse’, unpublished master’s thesis, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
  5. Bolinger, D.: 1979, ‘Pronouns in discourse’, in T. Givon (ed.), Discourse and Syntax, Syntax and Semantics 12, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Carden, G.; 1982, ‘Backwards anaphora in discourse context’, Journal of Linguistics 18, 361 - 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carden, G. and T. Dietrich: 1981, ‘Introspection, observation and experiment: An example where experiment pays off’, in P. D. Asquith and R. N. Giere (eds.), Proceedings of the 1980 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2, East Lansing, Mich., pp. 583 - 597.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1980a, ‘On binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1 - 46.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1981b, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1982b, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding,, MIT Press, Cambridge, fylass.Google Scholar
  11. Engdahl, E.: 1983, ‘Parasite gaps, subject extraction, and the ECP’, Working Papers in Scandanavian syntax 6, University of Trondheim, Norway.Google Scholar
  12. Erteschik-Shir, N. and S. Lappin: 1979, ‘Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena’, Theoretical Linguistics 6, 43 - 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, G.P: 1980, ‘Pronouns’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 337 - 362.Google Scholar
  14. Fodor, J. A.: 1975, The Language of Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Goodluck, H.: 1978, Linguistic Principles in Children’s Grammar of Complement Subject Interpretation, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Gueron, J.: 1979, ‘Rélations de coréférence dans le phrase et dans le discours’, Langage Française 44, 42 - 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Higginbotham, J.: 1980a, ‘Anaphora and GB: Some preliminary remarks’, in J. Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society 9, 223 - 236, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. Higginbotham, J.: 1980b, ‘Pronouns and bound variables’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 679 - 708.Google Scholar
  19. Keenan, E.: 1971, ‘Names, quantifiers and a solution to the sloppy identity problem’, Papers in Linguistics 4, 211 - 232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche: 1982, ‘Variables and the bijection principle’, The Linguistic Review 2, 139 - 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuno, S.: 1972a, ‘Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English’, Linguistic Inquiry 3, (3), 269-320.Google Scholar
  22. Lasnik, H.: 1976, ‘Remarks on coreference’, Linguistic Analysis 2, 1 - 22.Google Scholar
  23. Lasnik, H.: 1981, ‘On two recent treatments of disjoint reference’, Journal of Linguistic Research 1, 48 - 58.Google Scholar
  24. Lust, B.: 1983, ‘On the notion “principal branching direction”, a parameter of universal grammar’, in Y. Otsu, H. Van Riemsdijk, K. Inoue, A. Kamio, and N. Kawsaki (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition, International Christian University, Tokyo, pp. 137-151 (originally presented at Workshop on Linguistic Theory and First Language Acquisition, Thirteenth International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo ).Google Scholar
  25. Lust, B., Y-C. Chien, and L. Mangione: 1984a, ‘First language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese: Constraints on free and bound null anaphora’, in S. Hattori and K. Inoue (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Congress of Linguists, Gakushuin, Tokyo, pp. 1127-1130.Google Scholar
  26. Lust, B., L. Mangione, and Y.-C. Chien: 1984b, ‘Determination of empty categories in first language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese’, Working papers in Linguistics 6, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.Google Scholar
  27. Lust, B. and T. Clifford: 1982, ‘The 3D study: Effects of depth, distance and directionality on children’s acquisition of anaphora’, in J. Pustejovsky and P. Sells (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 174-186 (also this volume).Google Scholar
  28. Lust, B., L. Solan, S. Flynn, C. Cross and E. Schuetz: 1981, ‘A comparison of null and pronominal anaphora in first language acquisition’, in V. Burke and J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 205-218 (also this volume).Google Scholar
  29. McCray, A.: 1980, ‘The semantics of backward anaphora’, in J. Jensen (ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, pp. 329 - 344.Google Scholar
  30. Mittwoch, A.: 1983, ‘Backward anaphora and discourse structure’, Journal of Pragmatics 7, 129 - 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Partee, B. H.: 1978, ‘Bound variables and other anaphors’, in D. Waltz (ed.), Proceedings ofTINLAPl, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
  32. Reinhart, T.: 1976, The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Reinhart, T.: 1981 a, ‘Definite NP anaphora and c-command domains’, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 605 - 636.Google Scholar
  34. Reinhart, T.: 1981b, ‘Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics’, Philosophica 27, 59 - 94.Google Scholar
  35. Reinhart, T.: 1983a, Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, Croom Helm, London.Google Scholar
  36. Reinhart, T.: 1983b, ’Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 47 - 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roeper, T.: 1983, ‘How children acquire bound variables’, in Y. Otsu, H. van Riemsdijk, et al. (eds.), Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquisition, International Christian University, Tokyo, pp. 129-135 (also this volume).Google Scholar
  38. Ross, J.: 1969, ‘Guess who?’, in R. Binnick et al. (eds.), Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.Google Scholar
  39. Sag, I.: 1976, Deletion and Logical Form, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  40. Solan, L.: 1981, ‘The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora’, in S. Tavakolian (ed.), Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 59 - 73.Google Scholar
  41. Solan, L.: 1983, Pronominal Reference: Child Language and the Theory of Grammar, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  42. Wasow, T.: 1972, Anaphoric Relations in English, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, E.: 1977a, ‘Discourse and logical form’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 101 - 139.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tanya Reinhart

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations