Abstract
A distinction has been made between two classes of anaphora. One class can take as antecedents not only linguistic constituents, but also objects and events in the extra-linguistic context. The other class accepts only certain linguistic elements as antecedents. It is not well understood why there should be two such classes, nor why a given form of anaphora is in one class rather than the other. This article attempts to explain the existence of the two classes by analyzing the difficulty a listener would have in recovering the antecedents of various forms of anaphora. This analysis suggests that it is intrinsically more difficult to discover the antecedents of some forms than of others, and that it is just these forms (with one exception) that have restrictions on acceptable antecedents. Therefore, the grammatical distinction between these two classes is not arbitrary, but subserves an important communicative function - that of ensuring that antecedents for anaphors are always recoverable.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
