Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-26T07:04:02.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Referring and accessibility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Mira Ariel
Mira Ariel
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Tel-Aviv University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The analysis of referring expressions can be divided into two branches for our purposes. The first includes theories of definite descriptions and proper names. The key to the riddle of the appropriate use of such expressions, it was thought, is the notion of presupposition: existence and/or uniqueness. Indeed, this was the question that dominated the literature for many years, starting with the early philosophical analyses of Frege (1982), Russell (1919) and Strawson (1956, 1964), and ending with the much later pragmatically oriented linguistic analyses, such as Liberman (1973), Kempson (1975), Prince (1978, 1981b), Gazdar (1979), McCawley (1979), Hawkins (1974, 1984) and even Loftus (1972, 1974, 1975), although this last approach is more psychological. The second branch of research totally neglected the question of presupposition. Non-syntactic/semantic theories of anaphoric expressions, pronouns especially, were psychologically oriented, and hence saw the issue to be accounted for quite differently. In fact, the objective of these theories has been to elucidate processing procedures by examining anaphoric expressions, rather than to make claims about anaphoric expressions as such.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 1988 , pp. 65 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ariel, M. (1983). Linguistic marking of social prominence: the Hebrew mi she introducer. JoP 7. 389–409.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (1985). Givenness marking. Ph.D. thesis submitted to Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Ariel, M. (forthcoming). Accessing NP antecedents (tentative title). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Kintsch, W., Fletcher, C. R. & Giuliani, V. (1980). Recognition memory for surface forms in dialogue: explicit vs. anaphoric reference. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda. A. E. (eds). 41–49.Google Scholar
Caramazza, A., Grober, E., Garvey, C. & Yates, J. (1977). Comprehension of anaphoric pronouns. JVLVB 16. 601–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In Chafe, W. L. (ed.), The pear stories, vol. 3 In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Advances in discourse processes. Norwood: Ablex. 127–202.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Marshall, C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, A. K. et al. (eds). 10–63.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Sengul, C. J. (1979). In search of referents for nouns and pronouns. Memory and cognition 7. 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eid, M. (1983). On the communicative function of subject pronouns in Arabic. JL 19. 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enc, M. (1983). Anchored expressions. MS, University of California.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1975). Santa-Cruz Lectures on Deixis 1971. Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1982). On sense and reference. In Zabeeh, F. et al. (eds). 117–140.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. J. M. (1979a). A solution to the projection problem. In Oh, C. K. & Dinneen, D. (eds). 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. J. M. (1979b). Pragmatics: implicature, presupposition and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Giora, R. (1985). Informational function of the linear ordering of texts. Ph.D. Thesis, Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) (1979). Syntax and semantics 12: discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: a quantitative cross-language study, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1978). How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, J. H., Ferguson, C. & Moravcsik, E. (eds), Universals of human language, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, B. J. (1981). Focusing and description in natural language dialogues. In Joshi, A. et al. (eds), 84–105.Google Scholar
Gundel, J. K. (1980). Zero NP-anaphora in Russian: a case of topic prominence. In Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds). 139–146.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Harris, M. B. (1980). The marking of definiteness: a diachronic perspective. In Traugott E. C., Labrum R. & Shepherd S. (eds). Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics.Amsterdam:John Benjamins. 75–86.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1974). Definiteness and indefiniteness. Ph.D. Thesis, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1984). A note on referent identifiability and copresence. JoP 8. 649–660.Google Scholar
Hinds, J. (1978). Anaphora in Japanese conversation. In Hinds, J. (ed.), Anaphora in discourse. Alberta: Linguistic Research.Google Scholar
Joshi, A. K., Webber, B. L. & Sag, I. A. (eds). (1981). Elements of discourse understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. M. (1975). Presupposition and the delimitation of semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1970). Learning and conceptual processes. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kreiman, J. & Ojeda, A. E. (eds) (1980). Papers from the parasession on pronouns and anaphora. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1987). Pragmatics and the grammar of anaphora: a partial pragmatic reduction of binding and control phenomena. JL 23. 379–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, C. N. & Thompson, S. A. (1979). Third-person pronouns and zero-anaphora in Chinese discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.). 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, M. (1973). Alternatives. In Corum, C., Smith-Stark, T. C. & Weiser, A. (eds). Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 346–355.Google Scholar
Linde, C. (1979). Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. In Givón, T. (ed.) 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (1972). Nouns, adjectives and semantic memory. J. Experimental Psychology 96. 213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (1974). Reconstructing memory. The incredible eye-witness. Psychology Today 8. 116–119.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eye-witness report. Cognitive Psychology 7. 560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. (1979). The paragraph as a grammatical unit. In Givón, T. (ed). 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, vols 1 and 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W., Levy, E. & Komisarjevsky Tyler, L. (1982). Producing interpretable discourse: the establishment and maintenance of reference. In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W. (eds), Speech, place and action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1979). Presupposition and discourse structure. In Oh, C. K. & Dinneen, D. (eds). 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oh, C. K. & Dinneen, D. (eds) (1979). Syntax and semantics, vol. 11. Presupposition. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1978a). On the function of existential presupposition in discourse. In Farkas, D. et al. (eds), Papers from the 14th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 362–376.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981a). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–255.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981b). On the inferencing of indefinite this NP's. In Joshi, A. K. et al. (eds), 231–250.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: an analysis of sentence topics. Philosophia 27. Special issue on pragmatic theory. 53–94.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Worcester: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1986). Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In Lust, B. (ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Dordrecht: Reidel. 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. (1919). Introduction to mathematical philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin. 167–180.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1981). Understanding written language. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sanford, A. J. & Garrod, S. C. (1985). On the real-time character of interpretation during reading. Language and cognitive processes 1. 43–59.Google Scholar
Schiffman, R. J. (1984). The two nominal anaphors it and that. In Drogo, J. et al. (eds), Papers from the 2Oth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 344–357.Google Scholar
Smith, N. V. (this volume). Principles, parameters and pragmatics. JL. 24: 189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, L. (1983). Pronominal reference: child language and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1982). Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension. In Smith, N. V. (ed.), Mutual knowledge. London: Academic Press. 61–87.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stenning, K. (1978). Anaphora as an approach to pragmatics. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J. & Miller, G. A. (eds). Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press. 162–200.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1956). On referring. In Zabeeh, F. et al. (eds). 159–192.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. (1964). Identifying reference and truth values. In Zabeeh, F. et al. (eds). 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yule, G. (1981). New, current and displaced entity reference. Lingua 55. 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabeeh, F., Klemke, E. D. & Jacobson, A. (eds) (1974). Readings in semantics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar