Anaphora in Generative Grammar

Thomas Wasow | Stanford University

Paperback – Available

ISBN 9789064391620 | EUR 68.00 | USD 102.00

e-Book –

ISBN 9789027271273 | EUR 68.00 | USD 102.00

Intuitively, it is clear why languages have anaphoric relations: anaphora reduces redundancy, thereby shortening (and hence simplifying) sentences. In order for this simplification to be possible, however, it is necessary that the speaker of a language be able to identify correctly the elements participating in an anaphoric relation and to determine correctly the meaning of the anaphor on the basis of meaning of the antecedent. If a grammar is to reflect the linguistic competence of a native speaker of a language, it must include mechanisms of associating anaphor and antecedent. In this volume the following questions will be considered: What sorts of mechanisms are best suited for representing anaphora in a grammar? What are the conditions on the rule(s) associating anaphors with antecedents? Do the various cases of anaphora form a linguistically significant class of phenomena, and, if so, how can the grammar capture this fact? And what do these answers entail for linguistic theory?

[Studies in Generative Linguistic Analysis, 2] 1979. x, 181 pp.

Publishing status: Available | Original publisher:E. Story-Scientia

https://doi.org/10.1075/sigla.2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements | p. v

Preface | pp. vii–viii

Chapter One : Background | pp. 1–9

PART I : Pronominal Anaphora

Chapter Two : The Pronominalization and Reflexivization Transformations | pp. 13–37

Chapter Three : Alternatives to Pronominalization | pp. 39–51

Chapter Four : The Pronominal Anaphora Rule | pp. 53–78

PART II : Other Anaphoric Relations | p. 79

Chapter Five : The Essential Unity of Anaphora | pp. 81–104

Chapter Six : An Alternative to Deletion | pp. 105–126

Chapter Seven : The Status of Equi | pp. 127–141

Chapter Eight : Conclusions | pp. 143–148

Appendix I : The Bach-Peters Paradox and Karttunen's Argument | pp. 149–156

Appendix II : Postal's WH-Constraint | pp. 157–175

Cited by (43)

Cited by 43 other publications

Order by:

Li, Jiaxin & Timothy Osborne

2023. ,

Schurr, Hagay, Jason Kandybowicz, Abdoulaye Laziz Nchare, Tysean Bucknor, Xiaomeng Ma, Magdalena Markowska & Armando Tapia

2023. Absence of Clausal Islands in Shupamem. Languages 9:1 ► pp. 7 ff.

Culicover, Peter W., Giuseppe Varaschin & Susanne Winkler

2022. The Radical Unacceptability Hypothesis: Accounting for Unacceptability without Universal Constraints. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 96 ff.

Doliana, Aaron

2022. Wh quantifier float in German. Syntax 25:3 ► pp. 335 ff.

Varaschin, Giuseppe

2020. Anti-reflexivity and logophoricity: an account of unexpected reflexivization contrasts. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 5:1

Amaechi, Mary & Doreen Georgi

2019. Quirks of subject (non-)extraction in Igbo. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 4:1

Corral Esteban, Avelino

2019. The structure of content questions in Cheyenne. <i>WORD</i> 65:1 ► pp. 25 ff.

Law, Paul

2019. Chapter 8. The syntax of either and disjunction. In Interfaces in Grammar [Language Faculty and Beyond, 15], ► pp. 207 ff.

Baker, Mark & Ruth Kramer

2018. Doubled clitics are pronouns. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36:4 ► pp. 1035 ff.

Safir, Ken

2017. Weak Crossover. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, ► pp. 1 ff.

Jenks, Peter

2014. Generalized Clausal Modifiers in Thai Noun Phrases. Syntax 17:4 ► pp. 299 ff.

Suihkonen, Pirkko & Lindsay J. Whaley

2014. Introduction. In On Diversity and Complexity of Languages Spoken in Europe and North and Central Asia [Studies in Language Companion Series, 164], ► pp. xi ff.

Sengani, Thomas M

2013. Controversies around the so-called alliterative concord in African languages: A Critical Language Awareness on communicative competence with specific reference to Tshivenda1. South African Journal of African Languages 33:2 ► pp. 189 ff.

Torrence, Harold

2013. A Promotion Analysis of Wolof Clefts. Syntax 16:2 ► pp. 176 ff.

Agüero-Bautista, Calixto

2012. Team Weak Crossover. Linguistic Inquiry 43:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Dobrovie-Sorin, Carmen & Claire Beyssade

2012. Disambiguating Indefinites. In Redefining Indefinites [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 85], ► pp. 143 ff.

Butler, Alastair

2011. Semantically Restricted Argument Dependencies. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 20:1 ► pp. 69 ff.

Houser, Michael J., Line Mikkelsen & Maziar Toosarvandani

2011. A Defective Auxiliary in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 23:3 ► pp. 245 ff.

Kitao, Yasuyuki

2011. The presence of head-raising and resumptive-stranding in Japanese relative clauses. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 58:3 ► pp. 313 ff.

Bouchard, Denis

2010. Une explication cognitive des effets attribués à la c-commande dans les contraintes sur la coréférence. Corela :HS-7

Carroll, Susanne

2009. On Non-Anaphor Reflexives. Revue québécoise de linguistique 15:2 ► pp. 135 ff.

McCloskey, James

2006. Resumption. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ► pp. 94 ff.

McCloskey, James

2017. Resumption. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, ► pp. 1 ff.

Gordon, Peter C & Randall Hendrick

1997. Intuitive knowledge of linguistic co-reference. Cognition 62:3 ► pp. 325 ff.

Gordon, Peter C. & Randall Hendrick

1998. The Representation and Processing of Coreference in Discourse. Cognitive Science 22:4 ► pp. 389 ff.

Hukari, Thomas E. & Robert D. Levine

1995. Adjunct extraction. Journal of Linguistics 31:2 ► pp. 195 ff.

Coats, Herbert & Zheng Min Dong

1994. Ellipsis in Russian. Russian Linguistics 18:3 ► pp. 281 ff.

YASUI, MIYOKO

1992. ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF WH-WORDS IN ENGLISH ELLIPTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 9:0 ► pp. 61 ff.

Georgopoulos, Carol

1991. Canonical government and the specifier parameter: An ECP account of weak crossover. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff.

Höhle, Tilman N.

1991. On Reconstruction and Coordination. In Representation and Derivation in the Theory of Grammar [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 22], ► pp. 139 ff.

Authier, J.-Marc

1990. De la sémantique duoraffectif et des coordinations elliptiques. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 35:4 ► pp. 317 ff.

Block, Russell

1988. Indefinite Noun Phrases and the Limits of Logic. In Künstliche Intelligenz [Informatik-Fachberichte, 181], ► pp. 104 ff.

Hendrick, Randall

1988. Introduction. In Anaphora in Celtic and Universal Grammar [Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14], ► pp. 1 ff.

KIMURA, NORIMI

1986. RIGHT NODE RAISING: A NULL ANAPHOR ANALYSIS. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 3:0 ► pp. 118 ff.

Lust, Barbara & Terri Clifford

1986. The 3D Study: Effects of Depth, Distance and Directionality on Children’s Acquisition of Anaphora. In Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 2], ► pp. 203 ff.

Wasow, Thomas

1986. Reflections on Anaphora. In Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 2], ► pp. 107 ff.

Chien, Yu-Chin & Barbara Lust

1985. The Concepts of Topic and Subject in First Language Acquisition of Mandarin Chinese. Child Development 56:6 ► pp. 1359 ff.

KOIZUMI, NAOSHI

1985. REDUCED QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 2:0 ► pp. 103 ff.

KOIZUMI, NAOSHI

1987. GAPPING AND PERIPHERAL DELETIONS. ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 4:0 ► pp. 238 ff.

Rudanko, Juhani

1985. Classes of verbs governing subject‐controlled forward Equi in present‐day English∗. English Studies 66:1 ► pp. 48 ff.

[no author supplied]

2006. Consolidated References. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, ► pp. 439 ff.

[no author supplied]

2015. References. In Lexical‐Functional Syntax, ► pp. 464 ff.

[no author supplied]

2016. Bare Argument Ellipsis and Focus [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 233],

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects