The interpretation of PRO may be dependent on another noun phrase; in this respect PRO behaves like an anaphor. But it is also possible for PRO to have arbitrary reference; in this respect, PRO behaves like a pronominal. This is why, in terms of features, PRO may be described as follows: PRO = [+anaphor, +pronominal] However, this set of features poses a problem for Binding Theory, as it imposes contradictory constraints on the distribution of PRO. This is because an anaphor must be bound in its governing category, but a pronominal must be free in its governing category: an anaphor must be bound in governing category a pronominal must be free in governing category Chomsky (1981) solves this paradox with the so-called PRO theorem which states that PRO must be ungoverned.
|
|
Definite null instantiation is the absence of a frame element that is recoverable from the context. It is similar to a zero anaphor.
|
|
Richard Kayne proposed the idea of unambiguous paths as an alternative to c-commanding relationships, which is the type of structure seen in examples (8). The idea of unambiguous paths stated that an antecedent and an anaphor should be connected via an unambiguous path. This means that the line connecting an antecedent and an anaphor cannot be broken by another argument.Kayne, R. (1981).
|
|
When the proform follows the expression to which it refers, anaphora is present (the proform is an anaphor), and when it precedes the expression to which it refers, cataphora is present (the proform is a cataphor). These notions are illustrated as follows: :: _Anaphora_ ::a. The musici was so loud that iti couldn't be enjoyed. –The anaphor it follows the expression to which it refers (its antecedent). ::b.
|
|
Our neighborsi dislike the music. If theyi are angry, the cops will show up soon. – The anaphor they follows the expression to which it refers (its antecedent). :: _Cataphora_ ::a.
|
|
The realization that PRO does not behave exactly like an R-Expression, an anaphor, or a pronoun (it is in fact, simultaneously an anaphor and a pronoun) led to the conclusion that it must be a category in and of itself. It can sometimes be bound, is sometimes co-referenced in the sentence, and does not fit into binding theory. Note that in modern theories, embedded clauses that introduce PRO as a subject are CPs.
|
|
Susan dropped _the plate_. It shattered loudly. – The pronoun it is an anaphor; it points to the left toward its antecedent the plate. ::b. _The music stopped_ , and that upset everyone.
|
|
' If a referent is identified, interpretation occurs without sense generation in light of that referent. Even if an explicit referent does not exist, anaphor resolution can help facilitate sense generation by providing more information that might hint at the combination's intended meaning. The dual-process hypothesis not to be confused with dual-process theory, states that sense generation and anaphor resolution occur in parallel. Both processes begin to work once the noun-noun combination is presented.
|
|
The term anaphor is used in a special way in the generative grammar tradition. Here it denotes what would normally be called a reflexive or reciprocal pronoun, such as himself or each other in English, and analogous forms in other languages. The use of the term anaphor in this narrow sense is unique to generative grammar, and in particular, to the traditional binding theory.The traditional binding theory is associated above all with Chomsky's analysis from the early 1980s (Chomsky 1981).
|
|
The interpretation of an anaphor relies on its preceding expression, as an anaphor functions to avoid the repetition of the prior word or phrase in a sentence. Condition One states that there should be an association between the pronominal anaphor and its quantificational antecedent for bound variable anaphora to be possible.Dechaine and Wiltschko(2014) Example (34) below shows that a defining feature of bound variable anaphora (BVA) requires the presence of an overt quantificational operator. As quantifiers vary in their scopes, there is an incongruity between the form and meaning of the pronouns, which are bound by different quantifiers. This finding also supplements the theories of Rullmann (2004), which look at semantic accounts of number agreement in bound variable pronouns. (34) (i) [Every female judge] believes that she is underpaid.
|
|
In linguistics, anaphora () is the use of an expression whose interpretation depends upon another expression in context (its antecedent or postcedent). In a narrower sense, anaphora is the use of an expression that depends specifically upon an antecedent expression and thus is contrasted with cataphora, which is the use of an expression that depends upon a postcedent expression. The anaphoric (referring) term is called an anaphor. For example, in the sentence Sally arrived, but nobody saw her, the pronoun her is an anaphor, referring back to the antecedent Sally.
|
|
In the sentence Before her arrival, nobody saw Sally, the pronoun her refers forward to the postcedent Sally, so her is now a cataphor (and an anaphor in the broader, but not the narrower, sense). Usually, an anaphoric expression is a proform or some other kind of deictic (contextually-dependent) expression.Tognini-Bonelli (2001:70) writes that "an anaphor is a linguistic entity which indicates a referential tie to some other linguistic entity in the same text". Both anaphora and cataphora are species of endophora, referring to something mentioned elsewhere in a dialog or text.
|
|
This does not rule out the possibility that social context can affect sense generation in some way, but it does assert that the basic structure of the process is unaffected. As seen above, debate as to what sense generation entails and how many sub-processes into which it should be divided is a contentious matter in cognitive science. The anaphor resolution hypothesis instead asserts that before sense generation occurs, interpreters first search their memory of recent communication to see if the combination refers to something previously discussed. This process is termed anaphor resolution'.
|
|
The pronominal anaphor does not select a referent in its discourse, but it is bound by the preceding quantificational operator. If a pronominal anaphor does not have a quantificational antecedent, but instead it has a proper name or a definite description as in example (35), the non-quantificational antecedent is called rigid designator. In this environment, the pronominal anaphor refers back to its antecedent. (35) (i) [Beverly]1 believes that [she]1 is underpaid. (ii) [The female lawyer]1 believes that [she]1 is underpaid. (Déchaine and Wiltschko, 2014: 4(9)) In (35i), as indicated by the index, ‘she’ refers back to Beverly,’ while in (35ii), ‘she’ refers back to its preceding antecedent ‘the female lawyer.’ Condition Two states that BVA requires a co-varying anaphoric expression. Not only overt pronominal anaphors (classified in terms of finiteness) (36i), but also various types of covert anaphors (‘big PRO’) (36ii) should be considered in the discussion of 3rd person pronouns.
|
|
The verbal prefixes convey information about the arguments of the verb: how many there are and their person and number features. The prefixes can be divided into three sorts: agreement markers, applicative markers, and anaphors (reflexives and reciprocals). The prefixes occur in the following order: agreement-anaphor-applicative-verb stem.
|
|
Under binding theory, specific principles apply to different sets of pronouns. Example reflexive structure. Since "himself" is immediately dominated by "John", Principle A is satisfied. In English, reflexive and reciprocal pronouns must adhere to Principle A: an anaphor (reflexive or reciprocal, such as "each other") must be bound in its governing category (roughly, the clause).
|
|
An anaphoric macro is a type of programming macro that deliberately captures some form supplied to the macro which may be referred to by an anaphor (an expression referring to another). Anaphoric macros first appeared in Paul Graham's On Lisp and their name is a reference to linguistic anaphora—the use of words as a substitute for preceding words.
|
|
An anaphoric macro is a type of programming macro that deliberately captures some form supplied to the macro which may be referred to by an anaphor (an expression referring to another). Anaphoric macros first appeared in Paul Graham's On LispChapter 6 of Let over Lambda and their name is a reference to linguistic anaphora—the use of words as a substitute for preceding words.
|
|
Just like Korean, pure personal pronouns used as the anaphor did not exist in traditional Japanese. Most of the time the language drops the pronoun completely or refers to people using their name with a suffix such as the gender-neutral -san added to it. For example, "She (Ms. Saitō) came" would be "斎藤さんが来ました" (Saitō-san ga kimashita).
|
|
The simplest type of referring expressions are pronoun such as he and it. The linguistics and natural language processing communities have developed various models for predicting anaphor referents, such as centering theory,M Poesio, R Stevenson, B di Eugenio, J Hitzeman (2004). Centering: A Parametric Theory and Its Instantiations. Computational Linguistics 30:309-363 and ideally referring-expression generation would be based on such models.
|
|
Every line of the poem begins with the anaphor "otto", or the possessive (genitive) "ottos". Even in the title, the pug follows directly, in a combination that is repeated 5 times in the poem, and which underlines the close relationship between the two characters. The sentences are short, sometimes elliptical, and consist of 2 to a maximum of 4 words. In their simplicity they are reminiscent of the words of a young child.
|
|
The Backwards Binding Approach helps demonstrate Binding Theory which requires an antecedent to c-command an anaphor. (24) Mary-nun [seolo-uy chinkwu]-lul [Ann-kwa Peter]-eykey poyecwuesta : Mary-Top each other's friends-Dat Ann and Peter-Acc showed. : 'Mary showed each other's friends Ann and Peter.' The above example shows that it is possible to have backwards binding in the Korean double object construction, in which the theme can be backwardly bound to the goal.
|
|
A bound variable pronoun (also called a bound variable anaphor or BVA) is a pronoun that has a quantified determiner phrase (DP) – such as every, some, or who – as its antecedent. Hendrick (2005): 103 An example of a bound variable pronoun in English is given in (1). (1) Each manager exploits the secretary who works for him. (Reinhart, 1983: 55 (19a)) In (1), the quantified DP is each manager, and the bound variable pronoun is him.
|
|
In general linguistics, a reflexive pronoun, sometimes simply called a reflexive, is an anaphoric pronoun that must be coreferential with another nominal (its antecedent) within the same clause. In the English language specifically, a reflexive pronoun will end in ‑self or ‑selves, and refer to a previously named noun or pronoun (myself, yourself, ourselves, themselves, etc.). English intensive pronouns, used for emphasis, take the same form. In generative grammar, a reflexive pronoun is an anaphor that must be bound by its antecedent (see binding).
|
|
The theory of binding explores the syntactic relationship that exists between coreferential expressions in sentences and texts. When two expressions are coreferential, the one is usually a full form (the antecedent) and the other is an abbreviated form (a proform or anaphor). Linguists use indices to show coreference, as with the i index in the example Billi said hei would come. The two expressions with the same reference are coindexed, hence in this example Bill and he are coindexed, indicating that they should be interpreted as coreferential.
|
|
Binding would require the anaphor and the antecedent to be matching in feature (a parallel analogy would be the feature gender). The logophoric effects can be accounted for by analyzing the complementizer kO as a verb taking a sentential phrase as its complement and a [+n] silent subject as its specifier. A schematic tree is given on the right. The silent subject receives the theta-role that the verb 'say' assigns to its subject, and the feature [+n] will force binding with n-pronouns.
|
|
Lastly, The Variable Rewriting Rule replaces pronouns and anaphors with variables in logical form. Pro-->BV Logical form: 14) Johni[VP λx(x blame x)], Billj [VP λy (y blame y)], too. PF Mapping Deep Structure to Surface Structure: 15) John [VP blamed himself], and Bill [VP blame himself], too. Here we see that both John and Bill precede the same VP, [blame himself]. It is important to note that any meaning, in this case what Subject the Anaphor “himself” references, is determined at LF, and thus left out of phonetic form.
|
|
In linguistics, anaphoric clitics are a specific subset of clitics: morphologically-bound morphemes that syntactically resemble one word unit, but are bound phonologically to another word unit. Anaphoric clitics are a type of anaphor, meaning that they refer to previously mentioned constituents. Anaphoric clitics thus fill a position in a clause that would otherwise be occupied by a noun phrase, meaning that they are in complementary distribution with full noun phrases. A sentence can thus either contain an anaphoric clitic or a full noun phrase carrying out a particular grammatical function, but not both.
|
|
The latter perspective is used for an individual who maintains a distance from the events being reported. This distinction in perspective may lead the anaphor of a clause, in some languages, to take on different morphological forms – in other words, if meant to depict the perspective of an individual whose speech, thoughts, and feelings are reported, then languages like the one studied by Clements – Ewe – will have logophoric pronouns to explicitly refer to that individual, and no other possible person. These were the basic characteristics of logophoricity, which served as an important foundation for future research in the field. However, Clements did not provide much discussion on the semantic and pragmatic aspects of logophoricity.
|
|
In a second, narrower sense, the term anaphora denotes the act of referring backwards in a dialog or text, such as referring to the left when an anaphor points to its left toward its antecedent in languages that are written from left to right. Etymologically, anaphora derives from Ancient Greek ἀναφορά (anaphorá, "a carrying back"), from ἀνά (aná, "up") + φέρω (phérō, "I carry"). In this narrow sense, anaphora stands in contrast to cataphora, which sees the act of referring forward in a dialog or text, or pointing to the right in languages that are written from left to right: Ancient Greek καταφορά (kataphorá, "a downward motion"), from κατά (katá, "downwards") + φέρω (phérō, "I carry"). A proform is a cataphor when it points to its right toward its postcedent.
|
|
According to Carnie, the sloppy identity problem can be explained using an LF-copying hypothesis. This hypothesis claims that before SPELLOUT, the elided VP has no structure and exists as an empty or null VP (as opposed to the PF-deletion hypothesis, which asserts that the elided VP has structure throughout the derivation). Only by copying structure from the VP antecedent does it have structure at LF. These copying processes occur covertly from SPELLOUT to LF. According to LF-copying, the ambiguity found in sloppy identity is due to different orderings of the copying rules for pronouns and verbs. Consider the following derivations of the sloppy reading and the strict reading for sentence (4), using the Covert VP-Copying Rule and the Anaphor-Copying Rule: 4) Calvin will strike himself and Otto will [vp Ø] too.
|
|