Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-03T07:52:01.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Antecedentless’ anaphors: deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Francis Cornish
Francis Cornish
Affiliation:
Département des Sciences du Langage, Université de Toulouse – Le Mirail, 5, Allées Antonio Machado, 31058 Toulouse Cedex, France. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Taking a cognitive perspective, and concentrating on instances of exophora (or so-called ‘antecedentless’ anaphora), where by definition there is no co-occurring expression in terms of which a given anaphor might be interpreted (i.e. a potential ‘antecedent’), I aim to show, firstly, that so-called exophora falls within the category of anaphora proper and not deixis; secondly, that it is in terms of a conceptual representation of the situation being evoked, and not in terms of the physical situation itself, that the anaphor is interpreted; and finally, that exophora is in reality a more central manifestation of anaphora than the ‘endophoric’ type, where the ‘antecedent’ expression co-occurs with the anaphor.

I will base the discussion on naturally occurring data from French and English, and will consider the contributions of gender- and number-marking within pronominal anaphors, as well as of such features of the anaphoric segment as the argument and referent-order statuses assigned to an anaphor by the governing predicator and its modifiers, and the stress and pitch characteristics of the anaphor. All these features play an important role in the assignment of a full interpretation to so-called ‘endophoric’ anaphors just as much as ‘exophoric’ ones, thereby weakening the theoretical basis for the distinction between the two types.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 19 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Apothéloz, D. (1995). Pragmatique des opérations de pointage et des expressions référentielles surdéterminées. Ms., I'Université de Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
Apothéloz, D. & Reichler-Béguelin, M.-J. (forthcoming). Demonstrative NPs and associativity. Journal of Pragmatics.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., Deulofeu, J., Stéfanini, J. & Van Den Eynden, K. (1987). Pronom et syntaxe: l'approche pronominale et son application au français. Paris: Selaf.Google Scholar
Bosch, P. (1983). Agreement and anaphora: a study of the role of pronouns in discourse. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bosch, P. (1987). Pronouns under control? A reply to Liliane Tasmowski and Paul Verluyten. Journal of Semantics. 5 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, P. (1988). Representing and accessing focussed referents. Language and Cognitive Processes. 3 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosch, P. (1989). Coherence and cohesion: comments on Roger van de Velde's paper ‘Man, verbal text, inferencing and coherence’. In Heydrich, W., Neubauer, F., Petöfi, J. S. & Sözer, E. (eds.) Connexity and coherence: analysis of text and discourse. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conte, M.-E. (1992). Deixis textuelle et deixis am Phantasma. In Anschütz, S. R. (ed.) Texte, Sätze, Wörter und Moneme: Festschrift für Klaus Heger zum 65. Geburtstag. Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag. 153–161.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1986). Anaphoric relations in English and French: a discourse perspective. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Cornish, F. (1987). Anaphoric pronouns: under linguistic control, or signalling particular discourse representations? Journal of Semantics. 5 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1991). Non-discrete reference, discourse construction, and the French neuter clitic pronouns. Journal of French Language Studies. 1 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1992). so be it: the discourse-semantic roles of so and it. Journal of Semantics. 9 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornish, F. (1995). Référence anaphorique, référence déictique, et contexte prédicatif et énonciatif. In Coquet J.-C. (ed.) Special issue of Sémiotiques 8: Anaphores: marqueurs et interprétations. 31–55.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K. (1982). Anaphora and deixis: same, similar, or different? In Jarvella & Klein (eds.). 315–338.Google Scholar
Greene, S. B., Gerrig, R. J., McKoon, G. & Ratcliff, R. (1994). Unheralded pronouns and management by common ground. Journal of Memory and Language. 33 511–526.CrossRefGoogle 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
Hankamer, J. & Sag, I. (1976). Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry. 7 391–428.Google Scholar
Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (eds.) (1982). Speech, place and action: studies in deixis and related topics. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1990a). Quand il n'a pas d'antécédent. Langages. 97 24–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1990b). La sémantique du prototype. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1992a). Y a-t-il un il ostensif? In Lorenzo, R. (ed.) Actos del XIX Congreso Internacional de Linguistica y Filoloxia Románicas. (La Coruña, 1989.) Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. 485–504.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1992b). Anaphore-deixis: deux approches concurrentes. In Morel & Danon-Boileau (eds.). 613–626.Google Scholar
Kleiber, G. (1994). Référence pronominale: comment analyser le pronom il? In Lailot, J. (ed.) LALIES: Actes des sessions de Linguistique et de Littérature. 13 (Aussois, 31 August—5 September 1992). Paris: Presses de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure. 79–141.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. In Verschueren, J. & Bertuccelli-Papi, M. (eds.) The pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 61–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. (Vol. 2.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, E. & Tyler, L. K. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: the establishment and maintenance of reference. In Jarvella & Klein (eds.). 339–378.Google Scholar
Milner, J.-C. (1982). Ordres et raisons de Langue. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Morel, M.-A. & Danon-Boileau, L. (eds.) (1992). La deixis. (Colloque en Sorbonne, 8–9 June 1990.) Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. & Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and people: the linguistic construction of social and personal identity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nunberg, G. (1993). Indexicality and deixis. Linguistics and Philosophy. 16 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakhill, J. & Garnham, A. (1992). Linguistic prescriptions and anaphoric reality. Text. 12 161–182.Google Scholar
Peirce, C. S. (1955). Logic as semiotic: the theory of signs. In Büchler, J. (ed.) Philosophical writings of Peirce. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Reboul, A. (1994). L'anaphore pronominale: le problème de l'attribution des référents. In Moeschler, J., Reboul, A., Luscher, J.-M. & Jayez, J. (eds.) Langage et pertinence. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. 105–173.Google Scholar
Reichler-Béguelin, M.-J. (1989). Anaphores, connecteurs et processus inférentiels. In Rubattel, C. (ed.) Modèles du discours. Recherches actuelles en Suisse Romande. Berne: Peter Lang. 27–48.Google Scholar
Reichler-Béguelin, M.-J. (1993). Anaphores associatives non-lexicales: incomplétude macrosyntaxique? In Karolak S. & Muryn T. (eds.) Complétude et Incomplétude dans les Langues Romanes et Slaves: actes du VIe Colloque International de Linguistique Romane et Slave. (Kraków, 29 September-3 October 1991.) 327–379.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. B. (eds.) Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 27–48.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, S. (1970). Modern French ce: the neuter pronoun in adjectival predication. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1990). Between text and context: deixis, anaphora, and the meaning of then. Text. 10 245–270.Google Scholar
Tasmowski-De Ryck, L. & Verluyten, P. (1982). Linguistic control of pronouns. Journal of Semantics. 1 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tasmowski-de Ryck, L. & Verluyten, P. (1985). Control mechanisms of anaphora. Journal of Semantics. 5 341–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1969). Eléments de syntaxe structurale. (2e édition revue et corrigée.) Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Yule, G. (1979). Pragmatically controlled anaphora. Lingua. 49 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1992). De la deixis à l'anaphore: quelques jalons. In Morel & Danon-Boileau (eds.). 603–612.Google Scholar