Francis Cornish

'Antecedentless' anaphors: deixis, anaphora, or what? Some evidence from English and French'

Taking a cognitive perspective, and concentrating on instances of exophora (or so-called ‘antecedentless’ anaphora), where by definition there is no co-occurring expression in terms of which a given anaphor might be interpreted (i.e. a potential ‘antecedent’), I aim to show, firstly, that so-called exophora falls within the category of anaphora proper and not deixis; secondly, that it is in terms of a conceptual representation of the situation being evoked, and not in terms of the physical situation itself, that the anaphor is interpreted; and finally, that exophora is in reality a more central manifestation of anaphora than the ‘endophoric’ type, where the ‘antecedent’ expression co-occurs with the anaphor. I will base the discussion on naturally occurring data from French and English, and will consider the contributions of gender- and number-marking within pronominal anaphors, as well as of such features of the anaphoric segment as the argument and referent-order statuses assigned to an anaphor by the governing predicator and its modifiers, and the stress and pitch characteristics of the anaphor. All these features play an important role in the assignment of a full interpretation to so-called ‘endophoric’ anaphors just as much as ‘exophoric’ ones, thereby weakening the theoretical basis for the distinction between the two types.

Non-discrete reference, discourse construction, and the French neuter clitic pronouns *

This article examines a range of predicate- and proposition-anaphoric phenomena in French, chiefly involving the ‘neuter’ clitic pronouns le, y and en , from the point of view of their discourse motivation. One aim is to characterise the relatively little-studied phenomenon of ‘non-discrete’ reference in discourse. Another is to determine the extent to which the speaker\ writer can use an anaphoric expression in such a way as to ‘release’ the predicative element from within a co-occuring functionally non -perdicative expression or sequence, or to asssign a ‘third order’ entity status as a mutually validated fact to what in context has been interpreted as a predication. Such uses constitute what I am calling the ‘discourse-operator’ function which anaphoric expressions may fulfil in the appropriate discourse context. The speacker\writers ability to use predicate anaphors in this kind of the way is constrained by the meta-discursive criterion of coherence.

Agreement and discourse: from cohesion to coherence

The article argues that, contrary to a widespread view (e.g. Haiman, 1985; Palmer, 1984), agreement in those languages which exhibit it is not a purely redundant, semantically empty and grammatically predictable phenomenon, but performs several important functions at the level of discourse. Taking French as the example language, I will argue (section 2.1) that agreement signals the function-argument interpretation to be assigned to pairs of expressions of various kinds; and second, that it may also code anaphorically the high-focus status of particular discourse referents (section 2.2). Section 3 compares certain written errors in agreement marking made by advanced learners of French, with certain other interpretative errors in their reading of French articles - errors based on agreement relations and leading to the mis-assignment of reference to an agreement target or personal pronoun. Finally, section 4 argues that third person personal pronouns should be treated differently from the (essentially predicative) agreement targets discussed in sections 2 and 3, claiming that they do not participate in agreement stricto sensu .

Integrating argument structure, clause semantics, grammatical functions and micro-discourse: The functional grammar perspective

Abstract This review article is a critical evaluation of Anna Siewierskas (AS) introduction to the current model of Functional Grammar, as expounded chiefly in Simon Diks (1989) synthesis. It is also a critique of certain aspects of the basic theory itself. The article has seven sections, reflecting the books essential structure and focus. After a brief introduction describing ASs framework and goals, section 2 sketches the internal organisation of the FG model of grammar, which specifies the semantic, grammatical and ‘micro-discourse’ structure of the simple clause. Section 3 deals with the aspect of FG which AS finds the least satisfactory, namely its handling of the grammatical functions subject and object. Section 4 examines the characteristic ‘layered’ structure of FG, in terms of both semantic and morphosyntactic properties. Section 5 then examines ASs criticisms of the FG approach to the ‘micro-discourse’ properties of the clause, the assignment of the ‘pragmatic functions’ theme, topic and focus. Finally, section 6 focuses on the formal realization of the annotated, layered relational structures specified by an FG grammar at the ‘expression’ point in a derivation: the rules determining the form and linear order of their constituent morphemes.

Discourse structure and anaphora: Written and conversational english☆

Abstract The article is a critical review of Fox (1987). After an introduction outlining Foxs essential aims, the scope of her study and her general approach to it, section 2 critically examines Foxs theoretical assumptions, methodology and selection of data, and the ways in which they affect her analyses of discourse anaphora in two genres of written and spoken English. Section 3 discusses Foxs approach to the various types of third-person referring expressions occuring in her data, as well as her choice of only two of them (third person pronouns and ‘full NPs’ — mainly Proper nouns) as the subject of her study. The article concludes by suggesting that its initial promise has not been fully borne out, due to certain of its methodological and theoretical standpoints.

Indexicals and L2 Learners’ Metadiscursive Awareness

This chapter deals with L2 learners’ critical awareness of how indexicals function in extended English texts in terms of analysis and production. Its goal is to encourage L2 English teachers to raise learners’ “metadiscursive awareness” levels, by engaging them in text- and discourse-structuring activities in which these expressions assume the major heuristic role. It begins by drawing a key distinction amongst text, context and discourse, and argues that indexical reference (context-bound pointing), though grounded in a variety of textual cues, is basically determined by discourse-level factors, mediated by context. Advanced L1 French learners of English, however, often make erroneous connections between parts of a written text and consequently misinterpret and hence distort the discourse created thereby. This is partly a function of certain models to which they are exposed in their learning experience, which tend to favour describing indexical reference in terms of matching segments of the co-text.

SN démonstratifs et anadeixis: sens ‘spatial’, ou valeurs tributaires d'une stratégie pragmatique potentielle? - ERRATUM

It has been brought to our attention that some of the line references listed in the above article are incorrect. The correct line references are listed below. p. 8, footnote 11, first line: “ligne 4” should read “(ligne 5)”, according to the lines of example (1). p. 12, first line of text below example (6): “(ligne 4)” should read “(lignes 4–5)”. p. 14, two lines below example (8): “à la ligne 5” should read “lignes 5–6”, so as to correspond to the text of the example as printed above example (8). p.14, four lines below example (9): “lignes 3–4” should read “lignes 4–5”. p. 15, in the second complete paragraph, line 2: “(ligne 4)” should read “(lignes 5–6)”. p. 16, first line below end of example (10): “(ligne 3)” should read (“ligne 4)”.

Anaphora and semantic interpretation: Review of: T. Reinhart, anaphora and semantic interpretation☆

Abstract The article consists of a critical review of Reinhart (1983), focussing both on certain methodological questions raised by her study of anaphora and on the theoretical assumptions underlying it. After a short general introduction to the work, the article discusses four aspects of it which relate to the above-mentioned concerns: the scope of Reinharts study of anaphora; the distinction which she adopts between ‘coreference’ and ‘anaphora’; the nature of her data and the status she accords them, and the emphasis which she lays upon contextual and discourse factors in attempting to account for the facts described. The article concludes by stressing the need to distinguish between formal cohesion and discourse coherence in accounting for anaphoric and other phenomena, arguing that the ‘c-command’ relation which figures so prominently in Reinharts study may be more correctly viewed as one means of signalling cohesion in discourse.