|Abstract||Broadly construed, anaphors are forms that must be anteceded in a discourse, and more narrowly, as syntacticians tend to use the term, anaphors are forms that must be anteceded within a bounded, syntactically defined domain. In this short note, I focus on the difference between these two notions of anaphor and some problems with approaches to anaphora that try to collapse them by linking all anaphors to their antecedents by syntactic operations. The latter approach permits syntactic operations to exceed the bounds of sentence grammar and must still introduce familiar descriptive constraints to distinguish between anaphora in the general sense, on the one hand, and syntactic anaphors, on the other. The notion of syntactic anaphor most familiar to syntacticians is the class of forms that are susceptible to Principle A (1a) of Chomsky's (1981) Binding Theory..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Anna Szabolcsi (1987). Bound Variables in Syntax (Are There Any?). In J. Groenendijk, F. Veltman & M. Stokhof (eds.), Sixth Amsterdam Colloquium Proceedings. Univ of Amsterdam.
Claire Gardent (2000). Deaccenting and Higher-Order Unification. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (3):313-338.
Bart Geurts (1998). Presuppositions and Anaphors in Attitude Contexts. Linguistics and Philosophy 21 (6):545-601.
Hub Prüst, Remko Scha & Martin Berg (1994). Discourse Grammar and Verb Phrase Anaphora. Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (3):261 - 327.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #133,381 of 549,013 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,013 )
How can I increase my downloads?