Discourse Anaphor Research Articles

Hittite correlatives are paratactic

This paper argues that correlative constructions in Hittite are paratactically structured. The relative clause is essentially a clausal hanging topic, sitting at the left edge of the main clause in linear juxtaposition without actually being an integrated part of it, syntactically speaking. I defend this claim in two stages. First, I argue that correlatives in Hittite are base-generated in their left-edge position rather than derived through movement (as advocated for Hindi by, e.g., Bhatt 2003). I adduce as evidence the fact that the main clause correlate appears to be simply a discourse anaphor and need not even be present in the construction; these observations are incompatible with a movement-based derivation that generates the relative clause as a modifier of the correlate. There is also evidence for a lack of locality effects. The second part of my claim, that Hittite correlatives are not syntactically integrated, differs from most base-generation accounts of correlatives, which take correlatives to be clausal adjuncts. I support my position with parallels to hanging topics and peripheral adverbials (Haegeman 2012) and with examples of intervening non-subordinate clauses, and I offer some comments on why syntactic adjunction is less well suited to the Hittite situation. I also show that Segmented Discourse Representation Theory (Asher & Lascarides 2003) accommodates these structures, including some notably non- canonical ones, in a simple and principled way.

Processing of discourse anaphors by L2 speakers of English


 
 
 This study examines the cognitive information processes that Turkish advanced non-native speakers of English employ in assigning the referents of this and that in reading and production. We predicted that these speakers would assign referents in relation to the linear distance between discourse-linked anaphors and their referents in the discourse (i.e., based on spatial-temporal features of this and that), which means they would prefer this for a referent mentioned in the proximal chunk of text and that for a referent mentioned in the distal chunk. We also predicted that readers would not assign referents based on the focusing features of this and that. We tested our predictions in two eye- tracking reading experiments and one sentence-completion experiment. Turkish L2 learners’ on- line reference resolution in reading experiments was different from that of English native speakers that were tested in a previous study. In the eye-tracking experiments, Turkish L2 learners did not show evidence of using a recency strategy to resolve referential ambiguity and did not use spatial- temporal or focusing features of this and that to assign referents. On the other hand, in the sentence- completion experiment, the effect of prominence of discourse structure in the use of this and that was qualitatively similar to that of English native speakers, but their indexing of the degree of focus of this and that was different. Our results suggest that the difference between Turkish L2 learners and English native speakers is due to L1 interference. 
 
 

WITHDRAWN: Discourse Anaphors in ILCI Corpora: Generalizing Mapping Strategies Based on A Centering Theory

Abstract The purpose of the study is to find out inter- sentential/discourse anaphors in the ILCI-Punjabi corpora and suggesting the mapping strategies based on a centering theory for automatic binding between antecedent and anaphors. We have analyzed approximate 1,000 POS tagged sentence file under tourism domain and searched cross-sentential anaphors. Generative syntax has long ago proposed a binding proposal for sentential/long distance anaphors. We have selected another centering mechanism for generalizing the same issue here. In short, we have five sections in this paper. First section deals with various approaches to discourse anaphors. Second section elaborates aims/objectives of the study. Third section focuses on the occurrence of Punjabi discourse anaphors in ILCI corpora. Fourth section is the core part, which shows the interaction between discourse anaphors and a centering theory and it explains the resolution steps in an algorithm for discourse anaphors. Fifth section concludes a paper and it claim that complex structure of discourse anaphors occurrences could also be resolved with the help of a centering theory in future.

A Pragmatic Study of Referring Expressions in English and Korean News Articles

This study explores referring expressions in naturally-occurring contemporary English and Korean written corpus and gives a pragmatic account of the systematic distribution. It focuses on comparing and contrasting types of discourse anaphors to public figures in news articles in two aspects: the order of mention (the first, the second, and the third mention) and the distance between coreferential expressions. This analysis shows that there are two patterns of discourse anaphors in both languages: general anaphoric pattern in English and Korean; sequential anaphoric pattern only in Korean. Meanwhile, it is also argued that Ariel’s cognitive accessibility cannot be applied for explaining two patterns. Rather, a sociocultural pragmatic account gives a comprehensive understanding of two patterns in both languages.

The licensing condition on clausal ellipsis

This paper is concerned with the correct characterization of the licensing condition on clausal ellipsis and how it relates to the distribution of ellipsis. I argue, essentially following López (2000), that ellipsis is licensed when the ellipsis clause bears a relation to an antecedent in the discourse component. A relation between two discourse units can be established in two ways: (1) Either there holds a direct relation between the two discourse units or (2) there holds an anaphoric relation mediated by a discourse anaphor. In this paper, I show how this two-way distinction in setting up discourse relations accounts for the two-way split we find in the distribution of ellipsis.

On the acquisition of daar and er

Schafer & Roeper (2000) have traced the acquisition order of the various occurrences of there in English monolingual children. One of their claims is that expletive there triggers the emergence of there as a discourse anaphor. Taking their approach as a starting point, we report here on a similar search that we have carried out on files from Dutch corpora in CHILDES, focussing on the two Dutch counterparts daar and er. Dutch children face a particular acquisition puzzle in having to deal with both of these equivalents for ‘there’. Our results show that discourse anaphoric daar and er emerge prior to expletive er. This clearly contradicts Schafer & Roeper’s claim for the need of an expletive trigger. We argue instead that the discrepancy between the English and Dutch findings is caused by the much larger variety of discourse anaphoric constructions with daar and er in Dutch.

Obviation properties of the d-pronoun in Dutch

The present paper discusses a decisive difference in Dutch between the d(emonstrative)-pronoun and the p(ersonal)-pronoun. The d-pronoun is a grammatical device for focus-to-topic-shift. Van Kampen (2010) derived this from two properties of the d-pronoun , neither of them present in the p-pronoun. (i) The d-pronoun obviates as antecedent all arguments except the first preceding focus. (ii) The d-pronoun introduces the new topic of its sentence. The present paper derives three other properties of the d-pronoun. The d-pronoun allows a bound variable reading in certain complex CPs (Section 2). A d-pronoun in a temporal adjunct CP can bind a quantifier in the matrix CP , but it does not do so in non-temporal adjunct CPs (Section 3), nor in complement CPs (Section 4). Since the d-pronoun is not only an anaphor locally bound by the first preceding focus , but also a discourse anaphor , it invites a reconsideration of the notion ‘bound anaphor’ in the Binding Theory.

Clitic-doubled left dislocation and focus fronting in L2 Spanish: A case of successful acquisition at the syntax–discourse interface

This experimental study tests the Interface Hypothesis by looking into processes at the syntax–discourse interface, teasing apart acquisition of syntactic, semantic and discourse knowledge. Adopting López’s (2009) pragmatic features [±a(naphor)] and [±c(ontrast)], which in combination account for the constructions of dislocation and fronting, we tested clitic left dislocation and fronted focus in the comprehension of English native speakers learning Spanish. Furthermore, we tested knowledge of an additional semantic property: the relationship between the discourse anaphor and the antecedent in clitic left dislocation (CLLD). This relationship is free: it can be subset, superset, part/whole. Syntactic knowledge of clitics was a condition for inclusion in the main test. Our findings indicate that all learners are sensitive to the semantic constraints. While the near-native speakers display native-like discourse knowledge, the advanced speakers demonstrated some discourse knowledge, and intermediate learners did not display any discourse knowledge. The findings support as well as challenge the Interface Hypothesis.

Greek Anaphora in Cross-Linguistic Perspective

AbstractThe Homeric and Classical Greek systems of referentially dependent pronouns support an approach to binding and anaphoric reference which characterizes pronouns by two cross-classifying features, which specify the maximal domain in which their antecedent must be located, and whether they can overlap in reference with a coargument (Kiparsky 2002). By treating reflexivity as a special case of referential dependency, this approach predicts a class of referentially dependent non-reflexive anaphors, or discourse anaphors, whose characteristic is that they need not have a structural antecedent but can serve as reflexives in contexts where a dedicated reflexive is unavailable. This class is instantiated in the Greek clitic anaphors ε&ogr;, ε, &ogr;ι, μιν. It also predicts a class of reflexive pronouns which must be disjoint in reference from a coargument, attested in Homeric Greek as the bare reflexive ε-. Greek also gives some support to the Blocking principle, which dictates the use of the most restricted pronoun available in a given context. The proposal is compared to the well-known theory of Reinhart & Reuland (1993) on the basis of Greek as well as Germanic (Swedish, German, Dutch, Frisian, Old English), and is shown to provide a better answer to the challenge raised by Evans & Levinson (2009).

‘I know that women don’t like me!’ Presuppositions in therapeutic discourse

One of the biggest problems concerning presuppositions has been correctly dealing with their sensitivity to the context, i.e. why inferences triggered by certain expressions do not project out in all linguistic environments, even though the triggering words preserve their semantic content in different settings. The answer which is of particular interest here goes along with the principles of the binding theory of presuppositions developed by van der Sandt (1992). According to this theory, presuppositions behave as anaphors and can be resolved in the same way at the level of discourse representation. This article contributes to a very scarce body of empirical work on presuppositions, as it scrutinizes examples of presuppositions that act like discourse anaphors in the context of three psychotherapeutic sessions. Such sessions can be analyzed in the same way as ordinary spoken discourse; however, the initial premise that the usage of presuppositions differs in this genre in comparison to daily interaction is confirmed. The results of both quantitative and qualitative analysis indicate that presuppositions are used for different strategic reasons in the two genres compared, which influences the way they should be interpreted and also their frequency.

Tense as discourse anaphor

In this paper, I consider a range of English expressions and show that their context-dependency can be characterized in terms of two properties:1. They specify entities in an evolving of the that the listener is constructing;2. The particular entity specified depends on another entity in that part of the evolving discourse model that the listener is currently attending to.Such expressions have been called anaphors. I show how tensed clauses share these characteristics, usually just attributed to anaphoric noun phrases. This not only allows us to capture in a simple way the oft-stated but difficult-to-prove intuition that tense is anaphoric, but also contributes to our knowledge of what is needed for understanding narrative text.

Whichitis it? The acquisition of referential and expletiveit

The purpose of this study was to determine the natural order of acquisition of the proform it, comparing deictic pronoun it, anaphoric pronoun it and expletive it. Files from four children (Adam, Eve, Nina and Peter) aged 1;6-3;0 in the CHILDES database were coded for occurrences of NP it (here it is) and expletive it (it's raining). Occurrences of NP it were coded for whether they followed an overt discourse anaphor (anaphoric it) or not (deictic it). All children examined produce deictic and anaphoric pronoun it from the very first files, but do not produce expletive it until 2-7 months later. Following Inoue's (1991) lexical-semantic reanalysis account of the acquisition of expletive there after locative there, we propose that children acquire expletive it by reanalyzing referential pronoun it to include an expletive subtype. This reanalysis takes place when children realize that expletive it never co-occurs with any deictic/anaphoric referent.

Descriptive Names vs. Descriptive Anaphora

Alan Berger presents analyses of (i) descriptive names (those the referents of which are fixed by description) and (ii) pronouns in discourses that are anaphoric on expressions occurring in preceding sentences. Each analysis has much to be said for it. In my opinion, however, he muddies the water by treating descriptive names and discourse anaphora as if they were two instances of essentially the same thing. He treats descriptive names as if they were anaphoric on expressions used in their original introduction, and discourse anaphors as if they were rigid singular terms the referents of which are determined descriptively. Neither, in my view, is correct. Berger divides proper names into F (or focusing) -type and S (or satisfying)-type. The referent of an F-type name is determined by the fact that speakers focus on it, and intend to use the name to refer to it. In ostensive baptisms, speakers have an object in mind, often because they are, or have been, in perceptual contact with it. When they decide to name it, they may do so in various ways. They may say, Let's call him lFido' (pointing at a certain dog), or Let's call that dog 'Fido or even Let's call the dog we bought this morning 'Fido'. In these cases, the referent of n is not fixed by a description D in Kripke's sense, even if D is used to introduce n. Rather, as Berger nicely points out, D is merely a tool used to direct attention to the individual the speaker has in mind, and intends to use n to talk about. It is this intention, rather than satisfaction of any description, that determines the referent of an F-type name. Thus, even if D turns out not to denote the object o the speaker has in mind the baptism will succeed in introducing n as a name of o, provided that D has played its role of drawing attention to o. Of course, not all F-type names are introduced with formal baptisms. People already familiar with a certain body of water might simply begin calling it Green Lake. If the practice holds, and in time becomes conventionalized, the lake will acquire an F-type name (whether or not it is really green), despite the fact that there may have been no single use which established the connection between the name and its bearer. Similarly, a name n that already

The resolution of discourse anaphors: Some on-line studies

The resolution of discourse anaphors: Some on-line studies